How To Counter a Party Face?

[ByzantiumBhuka]

I'm DMing for a group of 4 fifth-level players right now. The druid died in a disastrous reconnaissance mission as a spider, so I had him roll up a new 5th-level character.

He's now a half-elf rogue. He used his Ability Score Improvement to max out his Charisma (+5), got proficiency in Deception and Persuasion (+3), and got expertise in those skills as well (+3 again). So now he has +11 in both Deception and Persuasion.

I didn't catch that aspect of the build at first, until he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

[stoutstien]

I'm DMing for a group of 4 fifth-level players right now. The druid died in a disastrous reconnaissance mission as a spider, so I had him roll up a new 5th-level character.

He's now a half-elf rogue. He used his Ability Score Improvement to max out his Charisma (+5), got proficiency in Deception and Persuasion (+3), and got expertise in those skills as well (+3 again). So now he has +11 in both Deception and Persuasion.

I didn't catch that aspect of the build at first, until he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

i really dont see a problem other than you can roll 40000 on a persuasion check and it means nothing if the action isn't possible in the first place. the lie/ suggestion has to be reasonable to begin with. other than that he wants to good at talking to stuff, let him. he took an opportunity cost picking those skills( and expertise) so he should get some benefit from that.

i do suggest using ability challenges vs static DC. so the player is using cha (deception) roll vs the npc's Wis (insight). adds some randomness to it

[nickl_2000]

1) Don't. He invested a lot in those skills, let him go nuts with them
2) Don't let him talk, have someone actively attack him without a chance to open his mouth.
3) Realize that someone can talk as fast as they like, but if I am determined to kill them it doesn't matter.


I would suggest #1 be the solution you choose most often. Making it so the PC can never use the skills that they devoted a lot of resources to is paramount to giving a bunch of magical daggers and shortsword to a strength based fighter. Ya, those work, but they aren't letting me play the character I want to play.

[denthor]

Read the bluff rules. It should become apparent they were conned. In other editions the greater the bluff the harder it is.

Example

I simple peasant girl at the fair. Does no harm who cares.

I know these look like the Crown jewels but if I showed you go that would get us both killed. This is a high stakes situation which means the person on the other end is worried about their life and it can do harm to them. This entails a high amount of risk therefore the DC can be Higher say 30 or even 40. Once this the character who has been bluffed has found out, This can give rise to anger issues problems revenge all sorts of things.

So many forget there are consequences to the actions.

[Sorinth]

It all comes down to what you define a success as.

There aren't a lot of details in your post but let's say the palace guards are on the lookout for a group of people that match the PCs description and they stop the PCs. The PCs try to talk their way out of it, even with a successful deception check to convince the guards you aren't the ones they are looking for, a cautious/suspicious guard wouldn't let them just go about their business. He'd probably try to take it up the chain of command. So maybe he sends a flunky to check with his captain to sort out whose who.

So a successful check still has value as now there are less guards if the PCs try to fight/run, but it's not an instant win.

For the red dragon, maybe the dragon is now paranoid his minions aren't really his. Shouldn't stop him from killing the PCs and then purging his minions of anyone suspicious.

[Lupine]

Really just force the consequences. Yes, the player can talk their way out of THIS scrap, but doing so will affect the NEXT encounter with that creature. Sure, the character is very effective at getting someone to believe that they're no one important, but after they appear at one crime scene, then another, then another and another, even the most dense, gullible person will begin to suspect things.

For example, the "these aren't the droids you're looking for" is annoying, but consider the effects. Guard reports, "Found group matching description, but I don't think they are the right people."
The commanding officer might send some people just to watch the players, or he might not. Either way, the paranoia of the guards increases: they're looking for an extremely dangerous group of individuals who they know will be arriving soon. Results of that: more guards on the streets. This means there are more guards to catch them in the lie, but they also respond to things quicker. Where before the players might be able to fight three or four rounds before the guards arrive, they now only have one or two.

This also changes the feel of the settlement. An increase of guards on patrol would be noticed by the townsfolk. They will start to become tense, and more prone to random fights. There's an Angry GM article on how to make settlements feel different, which I recommend for this purpose. In effect, increased paranoia leads to increased guards, leading to a feel of a hostile occupation.

[Kurt Kurageous]

he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

I've got to be critical here, and not of the player.

As previously said, the failure was yours in adjudicating the result. Did you ask him to make a roll, or did he just throw the die? If the latter, why didn't you ignore it saying, "Sorry, I hadn't asked for a roll." If the former, then why did you think success was possible? In 5e, a nat 20 out of combat does not mean success, and a 1 does not mean failure. The adjudication process starts with hearing their intent (win without fighting) and approach (by talking at it). Then you decide if there is any chance for the approach to succeed. If there's a chance, put a DC on it. If not, lay out the results like, "But he ignores you. Roll for initiative."

Don't you also know that you should not be building a guaranteed downing encounter that they cannot avoid or circumvent? Sounds like you wanted to end the campaign.

Do not even think of nerfing. As a Dm you are to honor your players choices and priorities, not defeat them.

[LudicSavant]

I'm DMing for a group of 4 fifth-level players right now. The druid died in a disastrous reconnaissance mission as a spider, so I had him roll up a new 5th-level character.

He's now a half-elf rogue. He used his Ability Score Improvement to max out his Charisma (+5), got proficiency in Deception and Persuasion (+3), and got expertise in those skills as well (+3 again). So now he has +11 in both Deception and Persuasion.

I didn't catch that aspect of the build at first, until he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

You should check the social encounter rules in the DMG, you already need more than just a high persuasion roll to get the best results. And it mechanically encourages the rest of the party to join in rather than giving it all to a Charisma “face.”

As for straight up counters to deception, there are things like spells that prevent lying, or read minds, or divine information. Or even just having the king hire a vizier with a good Insight who you need to maneuver out of the way to strengthen your chances of bluffing the king. That sort of thing. All kinds of tools for information warfare.

[ChildofLuthic]

Honestly, having a party face that avoids fights is fun, if you go with it. It adds depth to the game, and if they chose to focus on charisma and social skills over dexterity and stealth or sleight of hand, make it possible to end most encounters with good social skills.

I would suggest giving each NPC a list of reasons they wouldn't go along with something, and make it the job of the party to find out what those things are and convince the party to ignore them. This means that insight and investigation will also be important skills, to determine the values and needs of the NPC, as well as persuasion/deception/intimidation. Make failure a real possibility that leads to combat.

In my last game, I had a shaman that wanted to protect the evil mine spirits who shut down business. The party was hired to clear out the mine. I had written down that his objections would be:

1) The will of the spirits must be honored for religious reasons
2) The miners (who the shaman serves) were not the ones getting rich from the mining.
3) The shaman wants to show that he has more political power than the owner of the mine.

Of these objections, the shaman only mentioned #1 at first, and the shaman never actually said #3 - the players had to infer it. This allowed the bard to have fun, and the monk enjoyed using his high insight to find out a secret. It also made the interaction much more complex and interesting than just "roll to make the shaman do what you say."

[Keravath]

I'm DMing for a group of 4 fifth-level players right now. The druid died in a disastrous reconnaissance mission as a spider, so I had him roll up a new 5th-level character.

He's now a half-elf rogue. He used his Ability Score Improvement to max out his Charisma (+5), got proficiency in Deception and Persuasion (+3), and got expertise in those skills as well (+3 again). So now he has +11 in both Deception and Persuasion.

I didn't catch that aspect of the build at first, until he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

Expertise in social skills is lots of fun. However, the issue here, as some have mentioned, is not the skills of the character but how the DM runs the encounters.

The first rule to remember is that it is a skill check.
1) Sometimes success or failure is not possible.
2) Skills can't accomplish the impossible.


There are often situations where success or failure is NOT possible. You can't talk that band of orcs out of attacking you (unless the DM decides in advance that it is possible). You can't convince the guard to leave his post no matter how convincing you are if they guard is dedicated to their duty. You probably can't even talk him down enough to get within attack range. You get too close and he will attack no matter how silver tongued you might be. When you have a character like this in your party the DM needs to think a bit more about the encounters, appropriate skill checks and also decide is it even possible for the planned action to succeed. This isn't usually much of an issue with average skills. Someone rolls a 20, giving a 25 result and manages to pull off a very unlikely event. However, when the modifier is +11 or more ... or consider your rogue when they reach level 11 with a +13 to the skill AND a minimum roll possible of 23. They make the unlikely possible ALL the time. So instead of leaving the events to the dice the DM has to really consider what is reasonably possible under the circumstances.

In your encounter, if the person they talked to was "easily capable of overpowering the party" then you did not intend it as a combat encounter in the first place. Did the NPC KNOW what the party looks like? Does he know the party composition? The rogue doesn't have the force on his side, he can just use words effectively, but if the NPC knows the group he is looking for then he would just laugh at the feeble attempt of the rogue to convince him that the obvious party he is looking for isn't them. Do you think that "Hey! I am Joe's identical twin and all the rest of these are siblings of the folks you are looking for, that is why we look so much like them" is really going to work? (The answer honestly is no ... and you have to tell your players that up front, skills are cool and very useful but they aren't super powers).

[1Pirate]

Yeah, sounds like you might be treating those skills like Dominate Person. Whatever lie he tells should have a reasonable sort of plausibility to the person he’s telling it to in order to succeed. If it’s terrible, don’t even bother with a roll. If he comes up with something decent and he rolls well, congratulations, you made a player get creative to deal with a problem. That’s often known as good DMing.

(For due diligence sake, I just want to make sure you’re also not letting him just say “I use deception”, to get out of it).

You don’t need to let the deception completely avoid the encounter either. Maybe it just puts them in a more advantageous position, or just gives them the option to flee instead of face a TPK.

Lastly(and I think this applies to anything that appears “OP”), make the ability a feature not a bug for you as well.

Use it for campaign hooks: the tight lipped innkeeper he was BSing reveals that the Macguffin is actually in that spooky old castle they passed by earlier.

Have it cause encounters, instead of avoid them: one of the sentries he’s fast talking let’s it slip that the treasure they’ve been looking for got moved into that room where you planned a Yuan-ti ambush.

Or put him in positions where he’s going to have to come up with something really amusing to talk his way out of it: The BBEG hid something important in his underwear drawer and the guards arrive at the very second the rogue has picked up a fistful of tighty-whiteys(you could combine all three with this one. It turns out he strongly resembles a notorious underwear thief who doesn’t take kindly to poachers. Now they have to prove their innocence, catch the real thief who has started to send assassins after them).

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm DMing for a group of 4 fifth-level players right now. The druid died in a disastrous reconnaissance mission as a spider, so I had him roll up a new 5th-level character.

He's now a half-elf rogue. He used his Ability Score Improvement to max out his Charisma (+5), got proficiency in Deception and Persuasion (+3), and got expertise in those skills as well (+3 again). So now he has +11 in both Deception and Persuasion.

He rolled a 30 for Deception! So what?
There are (generally) no critical successes in D&D 5e: success if on or off.

1. Review the DMG, pages from about 230 - 240, about ability checks.
2. Remember that ability checks are not magic spells.
3. See point 2, again.
4. The player does not call the ability check roll. The DM does. Read PHB chapter 7, again, particularly the first three pages.
5. Only roll when the outcome is uncertain.

Example: if you, a stranger, just killed my favorite hunting dog (I am playing a minor noble in this case) no amount of persuasion or deception is going to make me let you off without consequence and make me friendly to you. What you may be able to do is mitigate the negative feeling.
For example: you may be able to get a "leave my land" rather than "I'll hunt you down and kill you" as a response.

Play NPC's as though they are 3 dimensional people.

[HappyDaze]

Sometimes the bad guy will just pull a Conan, shout "Enough talk!" and the fight will start. IME, PCs do it to NPCs all the time, so it should come as no surprise when some bloodthirsty bad guys do the same.

[Lunali]

Whenever a player is exceptionally good at something there are two things that you need to do. First, let them be exceptionally good at that thing at times, they put in the effort to be good at it, they should be rewarded. Second, don't let them remove the need to be good at other things, fast talking the guards is fine, but they will eventually figure it out and start seeking him, using magic if it's important enough.

[Merudo]

I didn't catch that aspect of the build at first, until he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

The problem is with the difficult DC chart. With Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, and Guidance it is quite possible to reach a 20+ bonus to a skill, and the chart should reflect that instead of capping at 30.

With expertise and 20 in the relevant stat, the maximum roll is 20 + 5 + 12 = 37. Add in a maximum Guidance and Bardic Inspiration, and the maximum is 53. Add Peerless Skill to that, and the maximum is 65.

I therefore suggest the following augmented chart:

05: Very easy
10: Easy
15: Medium
20: Hard
25; Very hard
30: Nearly impossible
35: Natural humanoid limit
40: Legendary (requires expert skill supplemented by magical abilities)
50: Mythical (requires peak skill supplemented by magical abilities)
60: God-level (feat you'd only expect from a God)

For your example with the Red Dragon, I'd put it as a roughly Legendary feat (convincing a leader that all of its minions are traitors without a shred of evidence), so I'd give it a DC 40.

If the dragon was known to be smart and wise (for example, an Ancient Gold Dragon), I'd change the difficulty to Mythical, and give it DC 50.

If the creature to fool was supernaturally wise, such as a Planetar, I'd put the DC to 60 (God-level feat).

[Bohandas]

Put them against a demon or something that doesn't need a reason to kill them

[Cheesegear]

He's now a half-elf rogue. He used his Ability Score Improvement to max out his Charisma (+5), got proficiency in Deception and Persuasion (+3), and got expertise in those skills as well (+3 again). So now he has +11 in both Deception and Persuasion.

Who cares? Deception and Persuasion are roleplaying skills. It doesn't matter what the dice say, if his words don't make any sense.


I didn't catch that aspect of the build at first, until he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

No matter how high you roll, you can't perform an impossible action.

The Black Half-Dragon has decided to kill you. His mind is made up. He loathes you. You've thwarted his plans twice now. You're ****ing done, son.
"I offer the Black Half-Dragon 17,000gp to spare us, and roll a 38 on Persuasion."
The Black Half-Dragon doesn't give a **** what you roll. If he lets you live, you'll just stop him again. And he'll take the 17K gp off of your corpse. That being said...Roll initiative.

Another example;
Face gets a reputation going around that he's a con-artist, and a cheat. The things he says, don't line up with the things he does.
Captain of the Guard rocks up, and is refusing to listen to anything he has to say, because of the repuation that Face has already garnered.
"I try and persuade him that it wasn't me, honest. Here's a 27 on Persuasion."
...He's not listening to anything you say. He's fallen for it once, but not a second time. You've already burned every single bridge in town. The jig is up.


So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

Why should a Red Dragon believe anything the player says? It's a Red Dragon. The implication that its minions are actually minions of Silver Dragon, would mean that the Red Dragon, is failable, and fell for a fairly easy ruse. Not only would a Dragon never admit - even to themselves - that they were tricked. But a Red Dragon especially would never, ever admit to be duped. And the implication of such, would make him even madder.

Face: Your minions tricked you.
Red Dragon: Cool. I believe you. That being said, I'll kill you first.Then kill them, but slower.

The boss fight still happens. The only ramification is what happens after the fight.

[Yakmala]

Remember, YOU the DM get to decide when a skill roll is appropriate, not the player.

I've lost track of the number of times a player declares "I'm going to talk them into it" and rolls persuasion before even getting approval from the DM to do so.

Yes, the player invested heavily in the skill and they should be afforded the opportunity to use it frequently. But that does not mean they get to use it every time they think it's appropriate.

Persuasion is not mind control.

Sometimes an NPC is immune to fire. Other times, they are immune to your party face's B.S.

[MaxWilson]

I'm DMing for a group of 4 fifth-level players right now. The druid died in a disastrous reconnaissance mission as a spider, so I had him roll up a new 5th-level character.

He's now a half-elf rogue. He used his Ability Score Improvement to max out his Charisma (+5), got proficiency in Deception and Persuasion (+3), and got expertise in those skills as well (+3 again). So now he has +11 in both Deception and Persuasion.

I didn't catch that aspect of the build at first, until he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

What were you supposed to do? You were supposed to decide what is the maximum possible deception before the ability check. If the story he's pushing is "these aren't the droids you're looking for," but they clearly are, the best the face can do is probably to convince the bad guy that the face is sincerely wrong--maybe the bad guy concludes that he's the party's dupe/victim and is willing to leave him unharmed/uncaptured when the rest of the party is dead/in prison, if he sits out the fight and remains neutral.

[Psychoalpha]

Who cares? Deception and Persuasion are roleplaying skills.

Wait, what? Does 5E differentiate between 'skills to physically do stuff' and 'roleplaying skills'? That seems hilariously dumb.


It doesn't matter what the dice say, if his words don't make any sense.

If it doesn't differentiate, then this should go for everything. Sorry, you didn't accurately describe the parkour your character just accomplished so your Athletics (or whatever 5E uses for 'runs and climbs real fast') fails.

Hell, it should go for everything: Sorry, it doesn't matter what the dice say, your description of your attacks was implausible at best, so your attacks fail.


The Black Half-Dragon has decided to kill you.

Stuff like this kills me. Everyone is so absolutely certain that their characters, or their NPCs in this case, are bastions of unshakable will. Like nobody in the history of the world with strongly held convictions or determination has been swayed to act against their apparent interests.

This is why I used to hate playing face-type characters, because nobody's just going to tell you that your description of your Heal skill was wrong so your patient doesn't get any better.


Why should a Red Dragon believe anything the player says? It's a Red Dragon. The implication that its minions are actually minions of Silver Dragon, would mean that the Red Dragon, is failable, and fell for a fairly easy ruse. Not only would a Dragon never admit - even to themselves - that they were tricked. But a Red Dragon especially would never, ever admit to be duped. And the implication of such, would make him even madder.

Yeah, right? I mean, it's not like the #1 cause of dragon death can usually be traced to crippling arrogance or paranoia making them believe some nonsense or act in some way that leaves them open to demonstrably inferior species getting a hand up on them. Why would a Red Dragon believe its minions might betray it? Because it's a chaotic evil dragon who knows that is exactly the sort of thing another dragon might do and it doesn't trust literally anyone but itself.

Sure, somebody saying "Your minions tricked you." is on par with someone whose every combat action no matter what is described at "Bob swings his sword again." in that it's boring and dumb, but presumably what is actually occurring and the mechanical interactions that are taking place are more complex than that.

If I'm the DM?

Face: Your minions tricked you.
Red Dragon: Mmm. Impossible. <pause> But let's find out. You stay right there, and keep your mouth shut. I'll interrogate my minions under spells. Every time one is loyal, I'm going to eat one of you. Every time one is a traitor, one of you can walk out of here.

Obviously the dragon is totally going to split them up and eat them all anyway, it doesn't give a crap about any implied deal. But this way it gets to play a cruel game with stupid morsel... I mean mortals, AND see if there's anything to this whole betrayal thing since it's super damn paranoid about the machinations of other dragons.

The party avoids an immediate fight, can try to take advantage of the situation another way (hopefully to escape if they're not actually up to fighting), and the face's stats weren't ignored. And that's just one of the many, many, many ways it could play out that don't just pretend a character (NPC or otherwise) only has one, absolute, set in stone path of behavior that can't be altered by anything short of magic.

[Randomthom]

I'm DMing for a group of 4 fifth-level players right now. The druid died in a disastrous reconnaissance mission as a spider, so I had him roll up a new 5th-level character.

He's now a half-elf rogue. He used his Ability Score Improvement to max out his Charisma (+5), got proficiency in Deception and Persuasion (+3), and got expertise in those skills as well (+3 again). So now he has +11 in both Deception and Persuasion.

I didn't catch that aspect of the build at first, until he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

I'm probably not saying anything new here but...
"what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill"...
STOP, just stop and think about what you're trying to do here. The player has made a 100% legitimate character who is very good at talking his way out of a situation. Your job as a GM is NOT to win. It is to tell a story where the players are the heroes (and the winners ultimately) but also to make those wins feel like they earned them. When that player avoided the combat, how did they feel? I'll bet they felt great. They just used the thing that makes their character remarkable to solve a problem in-game. This is why people play D&D.

A bit more detail on the event in question might help us with suggestions on how to help but first, you need to change that mindset.

Your fears about talking the dragon out of a fight don't need to be fears. You're allowed to decide that certain outcomes are impossible in certain situations. The dragon might be persuaded to look into it's minions intentions but it's not going to pass up on the meal that just walked into it's lair. Roll Initiative.

I'd also advise against getting hung up on the numbers. "He rolled a 30", it doesn't matter, if the DC was 18 then he passed, it doesn't matter that he passed really well in most cases.

You can use two tricks to manage excessive gaming of high social skills without the player ever feeling like you've taken them away. First, ask how. If the player says I'd like to deceive them, ask them how. They don't need to put all the eloquence that a cha 20 character would have into their words, they just need to give you the general gist of the attempted deception, it will help you to gauge how difficult the lie they're telling is and what the deceived NPC might do about the new (false) information.

Remember, a crazy high score in these isn't a magic ticket to talking your way past everything. You might be a smooth talker but lacking knowledge of the local customs and etiquette (disadvantage), speaking to a creature with a loose grasp on the language being used (disadvantage), already in combat with them (disadvantage), trying to persuade a crowd (their insight has advantage, man at the back calls "Bullsh*t!"). You might be persuading the King to give up his crown (impossible), let you bed his daughter (impossible, roll initiative), talking to a creature of low (<4) intelligence (impossible but maybe possible with animal handling).

Even success can be limited. They might deceive the guard into believing that they're not who you're looking for but if he was highly suspicious of you before, he might just be slightly suspicious of you now and ask you to wait while his colleague fetches a copy of the wanted poster.

D&D isn't a computer game. That success doesn't have to be absolute but it should gain them some kind of benefit. Maybe that dragon roasts a bunch of his Kobold minions with his first fire breath instead of the PCs. The guard is alone while his colleague goes to fetch the wanted poster.

Likewise, a failure needn't be disastrous. The smooth-talker who just asked the King if he may bed his daughter may just earn a hearty laugh and an "I like this one" because the King thought it was meant to be a joke (less likely if caught in a deception).

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Why should a Red Dragon believe anything the player says? It's a Red Dragon. The implication that its minions are actually minions of Silver Dragon, would mean that the Red Dragon, is failable, and fell for a fairly easy ruse. Not only would a Dragon never admit - even to themselves - that they were tricked. But a Red Dragon especially would never, ever admit to be duped. And the implication of such, would make him even madder.

Face: Your minions tricked you.
Red Dragon: Cool. I believe you. That being said, I'll kill you first.Then kill them, but slower.

The boss fight still happens. The only ramification is what happens after the fight.

So what the party should do is sneak past the dragon and talk their minions into actually betraying them, then killing the dragon together.

It's more fun too, it involves 3 different kinds of challenges rather than just one.





One of the things you could do to make things more interesting for the party face is give them too little, incomplete or false information. It is already pretty hard to convince the king's guard to make an exception for once and let these guys into the throne room with a magical insta-kill weapon because surely they're not here to assassinate the king, it gets harder if the person talking gets their details wrong. They're friends of the king from his time learning in the not-Spanish court, but they also claim to know his wife from there even though she was a local low royal who didn't meet the king until 5 years ago/the king has never been married/the king is gay/the king came out of the closet as trans and is a queen now it was a huge thing and she sent letters about it to all her friends how did you miss that one?

You might even introduce a new villain/rival who goes around counter-facing, femme-fataling and whatnot, warning people about the party, spreading lies about them, convincing people to give them misinformation or to pretend to be persuaded and then backstab the party when it matters. Sure, it takes the campaign in a very different direction, one you may not have been planning for, but it could be cool. At some point it even becomes easier to just start stabbing everyone again rather than trying to keep their story straight.

[Digimike]

As others have said, your objective isn't to "get around" them or counter them. They made the investment into that skill so it should be beneficial. Sometimes throwing a wrench into your plans can lead to the most fun moments at tables too.

A few things to note though.


If guard or whoever is predisposed to mistrust the party face, under specific orders to "check everything", or a superior is nearby give the check disadvantage.
If other players are present have NPC question them too. If they refuse to speak that would make the check harder.
Remember it's not DM vs Players. There's no need to truly "counter" them. Roll with it and have fun. The web of lies that a high deception PC can make can lead to fun encounter ideas.

[Cheesegear]

Wait, what? Does 5E differentiate between 'skills to physically do stuff' and 'roleplaying skills'? That seems hilariously dumb.

The issue is that as a role-playing game, what your character says, is just as important as what your character does. I've had DMs where yes, a +12 to a 'talking skill' can get you pretty much anything you want by saying 'I roll Persuasion for him not to do that...29." I've also had DMs where CHA should always be a dump stat, because what you, the player says, is far more important to the role you are playing, than the rolls you make, so it doesn't matter if you have a -4 to CHA checks if the words you say, are convincing by their very nature.

I, personally, go with what you - the player - determines whether you have dis/advantage or not, or it might reduce the DC of the check you need to make (e.g; Offering a bribe with the talk). Because playing the role, is important. If you can solve all problems just by rolling dice, then your character sheet really is just a spreadsheet of **** you have. And there's no point to playing the game, unless you can make your numbers on your spreadsheet as high as possible.


Stuff like this kills me. Everyone is so absolutely certain that their characters, or their NPCs in this case, are bastions of unshakable will.

Not everyone. But certainly some. That's why I used the example of a Half-Dragon, and a Black one, at that, and then I also added that he's previously been thwarted be the party twice.
His very nature, combined with his experience, doesn't matter what the party says. Roll a 35. You still can't perform an impossible task.

It's not that he's 'a bastion of unshakable will', it's that he has no reason to listen to words. He's done. He wants you in the ground, so that he no longer has to deal with you. How do you even convince him otherwise? Should a dice roll really be all that it takes?


Like nobody in the history of the world with strongly held convictions or determination has been swayed to act against their apparent interests.

You haven't met a lot of people with strongly held convictions, have you.
Sometimes, words don't mean ****. It's Actions that persuade people - especially if they have previous experience with a situation. And so far, your actions have proven that to the Black Dragon, you are a pain in the arse, and the only solution is for him to kill you, and then take the gold anyway.

Can you really fool someone twice? Three times? How long before they're just tired of your **** and no longer give a **** what you have to say? Even if what you're saying is true?


This is why I used to hate playing face-type characters, because nobody's just going to tell you that your description of your Heal skill was wrong so your patient doesn't get any better.

I hate playing Face characters because the vast majority of D&D's 5e rules are centered around combat.
Whilst 'role-playing' and speeches are 'DM's discretion'.
The DM sets the DC at 45. It isn't technically impossible. But at your level, with your numbers, it may as well be. So the DM lets you roll just to let you think it was possible and that you're actually engaged in the game. Even if the DM has no intention of letting you succeed in the first place.


Face: Your minions tricked you.
Red Dragon: Mmm. Impossible. <pause> But let's find out. You stay right there, and keep your mouth shut. I'll interrogate my minions under spells. Every time one is loyal, I'm going to eat one of you. Every time one is a traitor, one of you can walk out of here.

Obviously the dragon is totally going to split them up and eat them all anyway, it doesn't give a crap about any implied deal. But this way it gets to play a cruel game with stupid morsel... I mean mortals, AND see if there's anything to this whole betrayal thing since it's super damn paranoid about the machinations of other dragons.

So what you're saying is, it doesn't matter if the player rolls a 35 on their Persuasion. The Dragon is going to try and kill them regardless. What changes, is How, or When. We're agreed. You could probably convince the minions to overthrow their Dragon overlord. He's a Red Dragon, and guaranteed to be a ****. I'm not saying that there isn't a way to change the situation to make the fight slightly more in the party's favour. But I am saying that a Red Dragon doesn't have to do anything that doesn't serve its own interests (e.g; Not killing the players), regardless of what the players roll.

Bird's gotta eat. Fish gotta swim. Red Dragon's gotta kill Humanoids for no reason other than it can.

[Tangleweed]

Totes agree, let them shine. They probably made those choices because they wanted to play a character that is good at negotiations. But still, not everyone can be negotiated with. The slavers who are cating ppl captive to sell as slaves will not be talked ut of it. It is also hard convince foes that don't share your language.

I also learned the hard way, when I was playing the "face-role", that a star spawn mangler is really hard to argue with.

[Reynaert]

I, personally, go with what you - the player - determines whether you have dis/advantage or not, or it might reduce the DC of the check you need to make (e.g; Offering a bribe with the talk). Because playing the role, is important. If you can solve all problems just by rolling dice, then your character sheet really is just a spreadsheet of **** you have. And there's no point to playing the game, unless you can make your numbers on your spreadsheet as high as possible.

Do you do the same for physical skill checks? Do you give a bonus or penalty depending on how the player describes they are climbing that wall, opening that lock, or attacking that goblin?


Or, to put it differently: Some people wish to play a very charismatic character, but they, the player, are not charismatic at all and would have no idea how to persuade a guard, say. You would rob such players of the opportunity to play a character who is good at such things.

[Sigreid]

I think all you really need to do is realize that not everyone can be persuaded of everything and decide ahead of time when someone can't.

[KorvinStarmast]

Persuasion is not mind control.

Sometimes an NPC is immune to fire. Other times, they are immune to your party face's B.S. Also a good DM point to remember.

So what the party should do is sneak past the dragon and talk their minions into actually betraying them, then killing the dragon together. It's more fun too, it involves 3 different kinds of challenges rather than just one. I like where you went with this.

One of the things you could do to make things more interesting for the party face is give them too little, incomplete or false information.

It is already pretty hard to convince the king's guard to make an exception for once and let these guys into the throne room with a magical insta-kill weapon because surely they're not here to assassinate the king, it gets harder if the person talking gets their details wrong.


They're friends of the king from his time learning in the not-Spanish court, but they also claim to know his wife from there even though she was a local low royal who didn't meet the king until 5 years ago/the king has never been married/the king is gay/the king came out of the closet as trans and is a queen now it was a huge thing and she sent letters about it to all her friends how did you miss that one?

You might even introduce a new villain/rival who goes around counter-facing, femme-fataling and whatnot, warning people about the party, spreading lies about them, convincing people to give them misinformation or to pretend to be persuaded and then backstab the party when it matters. Sure, it takes the campaign in a very different direction, one you may not have been planning for, but it could be cool. At some point it even becomes easier to just start stabbing everyone again rather than trying to keep their story straight.And I really like what you did with that. :)

[Cheesegear]

Do you do the same for physical skill checks? Do you give a bonus or penalty depending on how the player describes they are climbing that wall, opening that lock, or attacking that goblin?

Sometimes, yes.

The player says "I have an idea that's really cool." and then goes into five minutes of detail describing how they want to do the thing.
...Oh, sorry, you rolled poorly so the dice says no. The last three minutes of your explanation was completely pointless. I'm glad you wasted everyone's time when a dice roll could've simply decided that you failed before your idea was even explained. Go back to the corner and think about how much time you wasted.

The DM determines the DCs of checks.

As the DM, I can determine that based on your description and your fully formed idea, the DC is 2. You still have to roll the dice. I at least have to pretend that you could fail. But at the end of the day, you're probably not going to. Even if you roll a '1' with no ability modifier, surely that's a fail, right? "Did I mention that you have advantage? Roll again."

If you roll another, modified 1, after having Advantage.
Well, while I do like and encourage putting the 'RP' into RPG, there's still a 'G', too.

...You want Inspiration?


Some people wish to play a very charismatic character, but they, the player, are not charismatic at all and would have no idea how to persuade a guard, say.

Then this is a fantastic opportunity for them to learn social skills and oration in a friendly and simulated environment where nothing really matters because it's all just pretend anyway. If you're not sure what to say, and that puts you off from playing a Face at my table? ...Wrong. Play the Face anyway, and learn what works and what doesn't. If people only ever went around only ever doing what they already knew that were good at and never trying anything, ever, life would get pretty boring. Hell, half the players at the table will have their input as well, and the Face-who-doesn't-know-what-to-say can just parrot whatever they say.

As long as you give me an idea of what you want to do or say, and how...Then we're all good.

If your approach to every problem or puzzle is "I roll [Skill].", and your only motivation to perform an action is based on the numbers on your character sheet, and if you think you should be able to bypass a boss fight with no other explanation than 'I rolled a 30'; Then yes. At one of my tables, you will probably have a bad time (because I set the DC at 35 :smallwink:). I've had plenty of people with social anxiety at my tables even with my 'speech rules'. They go fine, because everyone - even me - wants them to do well. Make a Knowledge or Insight check. I'll give you hints (e.g; The Half-Black Dragon probably doesn't care that much about gold, a bribe using money [wink, wink] wont work). It's not like I want you to fail. Just say anything you think will work.

I've already decided the DC in my head. The NPC is extremely aggressive towards you and wants you explicitly dead. What do? The DC is already quite high.
Now, you can convince me to lower the DC and/or give you advantage.
Convince me to give you Inspiration.
Something.
Or you can just roll the dice and work off of luck alone. That works, too. I guess. Never said it didn't.

I'm more worried about the player who can't really ever play Spellcasters because they have a reading disorder. No-one can help her.


You would rob such players of the opportunity to play a character who is good at such things.

No. Their DCs for all their checks will simply remain high. If they are under the impression that 'rolling a 30' solves all problems in a Role-Playing Game, then high DCs shouldn't be an issue. Right?

[Psychoalpha]

I've also had DMs where CHA should always be a dump stat, because what you, the player says, is far more important to the role you are playing, than the rolls you make, so it doesn't matter if you have a -4 to CHA checks if the words you say, are convincing by their very nature.

That's a bad DM, in my opinion. My very strongly held opinion. Just as bad as one who waves off attempts to role-play and just asks for dice rolls for everything. You might as well say you've had DMs who ignore roles entirely and make you LARP everything out, from bartering to combat: That's not actually a good example of anything.

Yes, it's a role-playing game. Not everyone is actually a smooth operator, just like not everyone is a savvy fighter or magical genius. That shouldn't exclude them from playing Bards, Fighters, Wizards, whatever. We have character sheets and stats for a reason.


If you can solve all problems just by rolling dice, then your character sheet really is just a spreadsheet of **** you have.

A character sheet is just a spreadsheet of stuff you have. What else would it be? A character is more than just the stats on its sheet, which is what makes it a role-playing game. People should try to play up to their stats, but the reality is that most people fall very short of that. The very idea that a DM would tank somebody for not being a great public speaker is no different than saying if the player can't remember some magical minutae in the moment that their Int and Knowledge (Arcana) ranks aren't going to save them no matter how high they are. It's a garbage way to treat players.


So what you're saying is, it doesn't matter if the player rolls a 35 on their Persuasion. The Dragon is going to try and kill them regardless. What changes, is How, or When. We're agreed.

Except we're not agreed, because in only one of these outcomes has the actions of the player influenced the game world in any way that matters, and in the other the DM decided that his NPC could only have one possible course of action and nothing else matters.



Persuasion is not mind control.

Sometimes an NPC is immune to fire. Other times, they are immune to your party face's B.S.
Also a good DM point to remember.

Is it? Meh. People have been convinced of absolutely outrageous nonsense, even by people they had every reason to disbelieve. People have been conned by the same person multiple times. People buy lies that run contrary to actual facts right in front of their faces.

Things are immune to fire because of specific game rules that spell out a creature's immunity to fire. Comparing that to an arbitrary decision by a DM that a given NPC is 'immune to B.S.' is a crappy comparison. 3.5 literally has rules for using a skill check to turn people into fanatical followers. If 5th Edition instead runs with the idea that the cap to how awesome you can be at your skills is the DM deciding you just aren't good enough no matter what the numbers are, that... I guess it only reinforces my disdain for the game world 5E describes.

[Cheesegear]

You might as well say you've had DMs who ignore roles entirely and make you LARP everything out, from bartering to combat

If that's the group you run with, and everyone is okay with it, then there's no problem. I would not like to play in that game, because it isn't a game, that's RP-with-no-G.


Yes, it's a role-playing game. Not everyone is actually a smooth operator, just like not everyone is a savvy fighter or magical genius. That shouldn't exclude them from playing Bards, Fighters, Wizards, whatever. We have character sheets and stats for a reason.

My next post says exactly that.


A character sheet is just a spreadsheet of stuff you have. What else would it be? A character is more than just the stats on its sheet, which is what makes it a role-playing game.

Okay; Semantics. Character sheet. Character. You got me.


The very idea that a DM would tank somebody for not being a great public speaker is no different than saying if the player can't remember some magical minutae in the moment that their Int and Knowledge (Arcana) ranks

Except I don't 'tank' someone for not being a great public speaker. I 'tank' someone for power-gaming the **** out of my campaign.


Is it? Meh. People have been convinced of absolutely outrageous nonsense, even by people they had every reason to disbelieve.

The NPC hand-picked his five Guards. He knows them all by name and has been with them for five years, and they're even his personal friends.
The players walk up and say they're new Guards newly assigned to the NPC.
That's not how anything works. How? When? Doesn't he pick his own Guards? When did he pick you? Who did he replace? He doesn't remember any of this. You are a liar.

But I rolled a 30 so he has to believe me. Boom. Take that DM.

[MrStabby]

It is worth asking if this adds to or subtracts from the fun other players are having.

If the rest of the party wants a kick the doors in and have a brawl type gamethen is this getting in the way? If every problem solved with words a problem they didn't get to take part in solving with their sword? Does the use of the skill get them more interesting things to kill with their sword or does it mean that there is a big chunk of the game they don't really get to take part in in the same way... I mean they can stand round and applaud and the the face's backing dancer or whatever but is this satisfying to them.

Also keep an eye on the party balance. Casters are more powerful than martials when they get to expend spells and less powerful when they dont. If circumventing conflict makes for fewer encounters in the day then it can tip the balance between different types of character.

My ideal approach, which is easier to outline than implement is:

1) Raise the difficulty of the game in terms of timetables/number of encounters. This means the party needs to skip some encounters just to survive and not die of attrition. Each PC can then use their skills to try and skip some fights.

2) Allow the face to do face things. This is their character and they should get to enjoy it.

3) Make your most fun and dramatic violent encounters with the most implacable enemies. Let the face deal with the low grade stuff and the people more easily persuaded.

4) Consider where the balance lies between what is said and how it is said when it comes to effectiveness. You want the rogue to feel special, but that the others have something to contribute. Successful interjections as the result of some History check or an insight check from someone in the party can make them feel part of the story rather than the audience.

5) There is a difference in persuading someone to do something against their interests and persuading them that something is in their interests (I guess difference between persuasion and deception). The same outcome might be achieved by different checks but that doesn't mean they have the same DC. Any monster immune to fear will never be intimidated. If it is immune to charm it is unlikely to be persuaded to do something it doesn't want to, but everyone should be susceptible to having the case made to them that a course of action is in their interests.

[MaxWilson]

Yes, it's a role-playing game. Not everyone is actually a smooth operator, just like not everyone is a savvy fighter or magical genius. That shouldn't exclude them from playing Bards, Fighters, Wizards, whatever. We have character sheets and stats for a reason.

And yet a player who plays a wizard unskillfully will still be an ineffective wizard. (It's very frustrating BTW to watch a theoretically Int 20 wizard do idiotic things like waste 9th level spell slots on upcasting Fireball IX in the first encounter of the session.)

If you invest in very high Deception skills, you'll be unusually good at executing on your deceptive plans, but you still have to have a plan. You can't just persuade anybody of anything. Maybe you can't persuade the dragon that his minions are working for an enemy dragon (they're obviously not), but if you come up with a statement that isn't obviously false you are better at selling that deception than other people would be. (Also, the dragon isn't stupid, and expect him to pay attention to the reactions and body language of other members of the party--if they look surprised and uncomfortable when you state that the whole party is actually a bunch of polymorphed Red Dragons themselves, it's not just your Deception skill that's going to matter, it's everybody's!)

[Cheesegear]

It is worth asking if this adds to or subtracts from the fun other players are having.

Always.


If every problem solved with words a problem they didn't get to take part in solving with their sword? Does the use of the skill get them more interesting things to kill with their sword or does it mean that there is a big chunk of the game they don't really get to take part in in the same way... I mean they can stand round and applaud and the the face's backing dancer or whatever but is this satisfying to them.

It also depends on your DM:
1. They create and NPC with an intricate backstory. The players don't care. Roll initiative. The NPC dies. Move on.
2. The DM creates a challenging combat with an interesting mechanic. The players don't care. Roll a 30 on Persuasion and bypass the fight.

What's the point in making something if your players aren't going to interact with it?
- Who are your players?
- What do they want out of the game?

Then the DM caters his campaign to his players. If a player has social anxiety can can't speak well. That's something the DM has to work with. If the player 'can't read good'. That's something the DM has to work with.
You don't DM for yourself. You DM for your players. If your players don't like your DMing style, they'll almost-always tell you, and you can either compromise, or tell them to go away if they don't like it. If your players aren't having any problems. Keep doing what you're doing.

...But I also realise that nobody on the internet compromises and anything, anyone says, is absolute.


2) Allow the face to do face things. This is their character and they should get to enjoy it.

The issue seems to be when Face wants to do Face things when doing Face things doesn't make sense.
Similar to how you shouldn't walk into a bar and try and decapitate the barkeeper.
Just 'cause you have +15 to attack rolls, doesn't mean you go around attacking people.

Just 'cause you have +15 to Persuasion, doesn't mean that everyone can be persuaded into doing things against their own self-interest. Is it possible to convince someone to do something they don't want to do? Absolutely. Always? In every situation? ...No. Some checks are impossible. The rules say as much. This applies to Speech skills, as much as it applies to everything else.


3) Let the face deal with the low grade stuff and the people more easily persuaded.

Correct. But again, that's not the issue.
The issue is that in the OP, 'speech skills' are effectively mind control. And what are the ways to get around that? What is the rule for 'Speech', in 5e, where there are very few rules, for Speech.
If a player invests everything into speech skills, but then also speech isn't mind control, so speech wont always work. So what's the point of playing that character?

Now we have the new argument of Roleplaying vs. Rollplaying. Which wont be solved in this thread. :smallwink:

[Reynaert]

Sometimes, yes.

But for ingame social interactions you expect it to be done always? Which is my point.


Then this is a fantastic opportunity for them to learn social skills and oration in a friendly and simulated environment where nothing really matters because it's all just pretend anyway. If you're not sure what to say, and that puts you off from playing a Face at my table? ...Wrong. Play the Face anyway, and learn what works and what doesn't. If people only ever went around only ever doing what they already knew that were good at and never trying anything, ever, life would get pretty boring. Hell, half the players at the table will have their input as well, and the Face-who-doesn't-know-what-to-say can just parrot whatever they say.

Been there, tried that, didn't work. People with bad social skills don't just learn those in a D&D game. And the other players tend to grow weary of having keep prompting the awkward guy.


If your approach to every problem or puzzle is "I roll [Skill].",

It isn't, though, so please stop strawmanning.

The problem, in this case, was something like 'Bad guy (who seems a lot stronger) wants to kill our group'.
To which the solution was 'I try to convince him to leave us alone because my character is a really smooth talker'.
Which, in and of itself, is a think-outside-the-box solution (given that the OP did not expect that to happen).

But apparently at your table that's not enough, the player *has* to describe (or even act out) in detail how the character does the convincing, otherwise you set the DC crazy high.

But if that same character wants to get into a building (the problem) and he goes 'I will climb a wall to the second-story window' (the solution), no DM would then force that player to describe, or even act out, how they are climbing that wall. They just roll climbing skill.

[Hail Tempus]

Do you do the same for physical skill checks? Do you give a bonus or penalty depending on how the player describes they are climbing that wall, opening that lock, or attacking that goblin?


Or, to put it differently: Some people wish to play a very charismatic character, but they, the player, are not charismatic at all and would have no idea how to persuade a guard, say. You would rob such players of the opportunity to play a character who is good at such things. I think it's perfectly fine to give bonuses or advantages for novel ideas or role-playing. However, I agree with you that PCs shouldn't be penalized because their players don't have the same level of skill as the PC. No DM is going to require a rogue's player to describe all of the tradecraft his PC is going to use to sneak past a hill giant. Similarly, the bard's player shouldn't be required to explain what type of social manipulation her PC is going to use to convince the guards that the party has been sent to replace them at their post.

It's perfectly fine for a player to say"I'm going to try and lie to the guards to get them to leave their post." The DM then decides what the DC is for the Charisma (Deception) check.

[Cheesegear]

But for ingame social interactions you expect it to be done always?

I expect players to describe everything their character does. That includes speech.
If they don't...That's fine. But I wish they would. And I reward them when they do. I don't punish them, when they don't.


Been there, tried that, didn't work. People with bad social skills don't just learn those in a D&D game. And the other players tend to grow weary of having keep prompting the awkward guy.

The guys and girl who I've played with get better and better every session.
So I'm lucky, I guess? :smallconfused:


But apparently at your table that's not enough, the player *has* to describe (or even act out) in detail how the character does the convincing, otherwise you set the DC crazy high.

Otherwise? It's already crazy high, because he's very hostile towards you, and hates you.
Do you believe that words - if not words alone - will be able to solve this problem?
I don't, and I'm the DM.
So either you have to roll really, really high (which is possible, given the characters some people make), or you try and convince me, based on the NPC I've written, and his ideals and motivations, that he shouldn't try to kill you. Maybe a Skill isn't all it takes. Maybe you'll need to perform an action or prove your words. Maybe there's a whole host of things that can change based on the NPC, the party, and the situation, and previous information I've already provided to the party before the encounter (i.e; He's not motivated by money. Don't try and bribe him. It's not going to work. Full stop.).

So, I reiterate:
Roleplaying vs. Rollplaying; Which is better? It depends on your group. And my group does fine with a mix.

Since the OP seems to be describing 'Rollplaying Wins Everytime'. The solution is to add more roleplaying. How you do that, is up to you. I'm telling you what's worked for me, and has worked for quite some time.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is it? Meh. People have been convinced of absolutely outrageous nonsense, even by people they had every reason to disbelieve. People have been conned by the same person multiple times. People buy lies that run contrary to actual facts right in front of their faces. If you can sell it to the DM, it will work. A die roll isn't necessarily required.

No DM is required to make his NPCs and monsters gullible idiots.
If you as a DM want to do that, cool, roll with it.

Beyond that, what Max Wilson said in this post. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=24345946&postcount=33)

[Cheesegear]

No DM is required to make his NPCs and monsters gullible idiots.

On his way out, he broke the deadbolt on the door, and now the lock is jammed.
"Can I pick the lock?"
...The lock is jammed. So, no. You'll have to think of something else. The door is made of wood, and could easily be broken open. But if you'll recall, the layout of the Keep is-
"I roll to pick the lock. I rolled a 28."
Oh? Even though I said you couldn't. I guess the mechanism isn't jammed because you rolled well.

[Grey Watcher]

No matter how high you roll, you can't perform an impossible action.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, yes, it's fair and makes sense. On the other hand, it seems to open the way for a lot of unintentional abuse, since one can (even without meaning to) end up consistently ruling against the player because you hadn't prepared for the alternative or were really looking forward to he combat encounter or something. So you end up just negating a player's build by DM fiat, which ends up torpedoing the fun-factor for that player. If I built a high-strength Barbarian with a penchant for busting down doors and kept getting told "no roll, the door is outright impossible to budge" time and time again, I'd get frustrated.

It's a really easy trap to fall into. I've done it myself: I told a player she couldn't break through an ordinary-looking window because it sequence broke the adventure. ("It's, uh, not glass. It's magic force. Because the house is haunted, after all.") It was the wrong call, but I fumbled because I was too attached to doing things the way I had planned. So my inclination is to avoid declaring anything truly impossible.

And with social things, it's a lot harder to hit a consensus on where the line is between "absurdly difficult" and "outright impossible." "The wall is perfectly vertical, perfectly smooth, and covered in slippery slime," is easy to accept as a literally impossible climb. But we've all been primed with so many trickster archetype characters talking their way into and out of all manner of trouble that, short of a language barrier, it's difficult to accept a talking solution as outright impossible. And if you went for a social heavy build, you probably were running with that assumption.

It's important to realize the difference between what is fair and what feels fair. And in something like D&D, you really want to err towards the latter as much as possible, I think. Even if it means overindulging your players a bit.

And, on the main topic, there's no reason you can't file away that unused Overwhelming Bad Guy statblock and pull it out (with appropriate tweaks) when it becomes relevant. D&D is a kind of theatre: if the players didn't see it, it didn't happen. They don't have to know that this stat block was originally built for a different character, after all. :smallwink:

[Demonslayer666]

I'm DMing for a group of 4 fifth-level players right now. The druid died in a disastrous reconnaissance mission as a spider, so I had him roll up a new 5th-level character.

He's now a half-elf rogue. He used his Ability Score Improvement to max out his Charisma (+5), got proficiency in Deception and Persuasion (+3), and got expertise in those skills as well (+3 again). So now he has +11 in both Deception and Persuasion.

I didn't catch that aspect of the build at first, until he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party, and pulled off a "not the droids you're looking for" maneuver. What was I supposed to do? He rolled a 30 for Deception!

So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

Hostile creatures do not listen, they attack. Only creatures willing to listen can be deceived, and the deception cannot be unbelievable. Any bluff that is obviously false should automatically fail, "This is not a rock, it's a gold piece." Weigh the deception against what the NPC knows is true, and take into consideration their conviction and the consequences.

In your example, the NPC knows this is very likely the party. Even if the face is convincing, the NPC would not take the chance that he could be wrong, and would take on the party anyway. Even if this isn't his quarry, it's better to be safe than sorry, and being wrong here could be very costly.

[MaxWilson]

Hostile creatures do not listen, they attack. Only creatures willing to listen can be deceived, and the deception cannot be unbelievable. Any bluff that is obviously false should automatically fail, "This is not a rock, it's a gold piece." Weigh the deception against what the NPC knows is true, and take into consideration their conviction and the consequences.

In your example, the NPC knows this is very likely the party. Even if the face is convincing, the NPC would not take the chance that he could be wrong, and would take on the party anyway. Even if this isn't his quarry, it's better to be safe than sorry, and being wrong here could be very costly.

A better deception in this case would have been to convey nonverbally and verbally that, "We've been expecting you and are very confident of winning this fight under these conditions. You should surrender or at least back off for now until our temporary advantage dissipates."

This is not an unbelievable claim under the 5E ruleset. It could be that there's a bunch of pre-laid Snare spells ready to disable the bad guy, or that there are hidden reinforcements nearby (Earth Elemental attack!), or Glyphs of Warding/Symbols, or that the party is just fresh off a rest with full HP and near-full spell points and buffed to the gills with potions and concentration spells right now.

If the enemy buys the bluff, the party may gain information and time in which to apply it and maybe turn some of those bluffs into reality.

[Merudo]

No matter how high you roll, you can't perform an impossible action.


Personally each time I wonder if an action is "impossible", I ask myself: could a Deity perform the action?

If so, I believe a level 20 character with expertise and every magical buff should have at least some chance of succeeding. This is reflected by giving the action a DC 60.



I hate playing Face characters because the vast majority of D&D's 5e rules are centered around combat.
Whilst 'role-playing' and speeches are 'DM's discretion'.
The DM sets the DC at 45. It isn't technically impossible. But at your level, with your numbers, it may as well be. So the DM lets you roll just to let you think it was possible and that you're actually engaged in the game. Even if the DM has no intention of letting you succeed in the first place.


As a DM, I almost always announce the DC *before* the player rolls, and typically before the player commits to the action as well.

Doing so makes the game feel more fair and more tense.

Treantmonk has a nice video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnAzpMQUKbM) on the subject.



So what you're saying is, it doesn't matter if the player rolls a 35 on their Persuasion. The Dragon is going to try and kill them regardless. What changes, is How, or When.

A 35 might be enough if the PC did their prep work. Planting evidence, manipulating the minions into betraying the Dragon, that kind of stuff.

Unless a character is both exceptionally skilled and supported by powerful magic, they shouldn't expected to be able to perform supernatural feats such as talking a Red Dragon out of a lunch without any preparation.

[Demonslayer666]

A better deception in this case would have been to convey nonverbally and verbally that, "We've been expecting you and are very confident of winning this fight under these conditions. You should surrender or at least back off for now until our temporary advantage dissipates."

This is not an unbelievable claim under the 5E ruleset. It could be that there's a bunch of pre-laid Snare spells ready to disable the bad guy, or that there are hidden reinforcements nearby (Earth Elemental attack!), or Glyphs of Warding/Symbols, or that the party is just fresh off a rest with full HP and near-full spell points and buffed to the gills with potions and concentration spells right now.

If the enemy buys the bluff, the party may gain information and time in which to apply it and maybe turn some of those bluffs into reality.

Yeah, that would have been a better deception than saying 'it's not us, let us go' when it was obvious it was them. I don't know the whole situation, but it certainly sounded like the NPC tracked them down.

It very well could be unbelievable depending on what the NPC knows. If he has been watching them closely for a while now, he may very well know that's not anywhere near possible.

[JoeJ]

A lot of the examples here seem like a group check would be more appropriate than having just one character do it. That also has the advantage that you can include the other players in the conversation instead of making them sit quietly while just one person gets to play. (And you can individually give advantage/disadvantage to any PC who offered an especially good/bad reason for the NPC to do what the party wants.)

[sophontteks]

When setting DCs a 30 is "nearly impossible" all this seems legit. I wouldn't rain on something a player put a lot of effort into. If you take this away from the player, you might as well make them roll a new character, because you're robbing them of their character's main strength.

This should not be a group check. Players join in through the assist action. The actions of other players may also effect the DC. Group checks are a great way to completely casterate the party face.

[Flashkannon]

The very idea that a DM would tank somebody for not being a great public speaker is no different than saying if the player can't remember some magical minutae in the moment that their Int and Knowledge (Arcana) ranks aren't going to save them no matter how high they are. It's a garbage way to treat players.
Quite frankly, this has always been my argument against this kind of DM. If your player's persuasion is not fitting for the very high persuasion they rolled, maybe you should help them produce a better argument instead of flat denying them, and expecting their frustration to propel them into doing better.


Except I don't 'tank' someone for not being a great public speaker. I 'tank' someone for power-gaming the **** out of my campaign.

The NPC hand-picked his five Guards. He knows them all by name and has been with them for five years, and they're even his personal friends.
The players walk up and say they're new Guards newly assigned to the NPC.
That's not how anything works. How? When? Doesn't he pick his own Guards? When did he pick you? Who did he replace? He doesn't remember any of this. You are a liar.

But I rolled a 30 so he has to believe me. Boom. Take that DM.
Well, in this case, what's the difference between someone who's using numbers as a crutch for their personal incompetence in the field of lying, intimidation, or persuasion, and someone who is 'powergaming'? Intent? How big the numbers get? How often they use the tactic they built their character around?

As for your example, I can see any number of ways that'd work well enough. A hapless appeal from the players that they're just following orders, an appeal to a greater authority, claiming to know one of the aforementioned guards, anything in that sphere. Obviously a big, poorly-planned out lie isn't going to work forever, but it should be able to work long enough to get the guy talking for a few rounds, or spur a short-term course of action, or get him to change his position, or any number of things. There's a lot of shades of what can happen besides "do they believe the lie Y/N".

Like, just from OOTS,

Remember when Haley convinced the Crystal Golem to go after Bozzok instead of her? And then subsequently tricked her into the lava? In that case, Crystal wanted nothing more than her death, the entire time. She was actively hostile, and didn't want to listen to anything Haley said. And that never changed, even after Haley talked to her.


I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, yes, it's fair and makes sense. On the other hand, it seems to open the way for a lot of unintentional abuse, since one can (even without meaning to) end up consistently ruling against the player because you hadn't prepared for the alternative or were really looking forward to he combat encounter or something. So you end up just negating a player's build by DM fiat, which ends up torpedoing the fun-factor for that player. If I built a high-strength Barbarian with a penchant for busting down doors and kept getting told "no roll, the door is outright impossible to budge" time and time again, I'd get frustrated.

It's a really easy trap to fall into. I've done it myself: I told a player she couldn't break through an ordinary-looking window because it sequence broke the adventure. ("It's, uh, not glass. It's magic force. Because the house is haunted, after all.") It was the wrong call, but I fumbled because I was too attached to doing things the way I had planned. So my inclination is to avoid declaring anything truly impossible.

And with social things, it's a lot harder to hit a consensus on where the line is between "absurdly difficult" and "outright impossible." "The wall is perfectly vertical, perfectly smooth, and covered in slippery slime," is easy to accept as a literally impossible climb. But we've all been primed with so many trickster archetype characters talking their way into and out of all manner of trouble that, short of a language barrier, it's difficult to accept a talking solution as outright impossible. And if you went for a social heavy build, you probably were running with that assumption.

It's important to realize the difference between what is fair and what feels fair. And in something like D&D, you really want to err towards the latter as much as possible, I think. Even if it means overindulging your players a bit.

And, on the main topic, there's no reason you can't file away that unused Overwhelming Bad Guy statblock and pull it out (with appropriate tweaks) when it becomes relevant. D&D is a kind of theatre: if the players didn't see it, it didn't happen. They don't have to know that this stat block was originally built for a different character, after all. :smallwink:
Grey Watcher has the right of it. I don't think I have ever found a DM, myself included, who doesn't have a tendency to rule against player social attempts that break the narrative, even if only unconsciously.

[Sigreid]

Quite frankly, this has always been my argument against this kind of DM. If your player's persuasion is not fitting for the very high persuasion they rolled, maybe you should help them produce a better argument instead of flat denying them, and expecting their frustration to propel them into doing better.


Well, in this case, what's the difference between someone who's using numbers as a crutch for their personal incompetence in the field of lying, intimidation, or persuasion, and someone who is 'powergaming'? Intent? How big the numbers get? How often they use the tactic they built their character around?

As for your example, I can see any number of ways that'd work well enough. A hapless appeal from the players that they're just following orders, an appeal to a greater authority, claiming to know one of the aforementioned guards, anything in that sphere. Obviously a big, poorly-planned out lie isn't going to work forever, but it should be able to work long enough to get the guy talking for a few rounds, or spur a short-term course of action, or get him to change his position, or any number of things. There's a lot of shades of what can happen besides "do they believe the lie Y/N".

Like, just from OOTS,

Remember when Haley convinced the Crystal Golem to go after Bozzok instead of her? And then subsequently tricked her into the lava? In that case, Crystal wanted nothing more than her death, the entire time. She was actively hostile, and didn't want to listen to anything Haley said. And that never changed, even after Haley talked to her.


Grey Watcher has the right of it. I don't think I have ever found a DM, myself included, who doesn't have a tendency to rule against player social attempts that break the narrative, even if only unconsciously.

/raises hand. But that's only because I sandbox and the narrative is controlled mostly by the party, not me.

[Cheesegear]

A 35 might be enough if the PC did their prep work. Planting evidence, manipulating the minions into betraying the Dragon, that kind of stuff.

This is what I'm getting at. It's not that you couldn't persuade a Dragon not to kill you...If you did x, y, and z. With a trail of evidence and some quick thinking, you could absolutely walk your way past a Red Dragon.

But I don't think that's the scenario that the OP is presenting, and it's exactly the scenario I'm against:
The player rolls a dice, it's a high number. So the DM 'loses'.

X, Y and Z was not performed before the fight. There was no trail of evidence, and no prep-work was done to build the lie. For all intents and purposes, RP-wise, the player didn't even say anything. Which means mechanically, the Red Dragon just has to take their word for it. The only reason that this Persuade roll worked, is because the dice said it worked. Pure G, no RP.


Quite frankly, this has always been my argument against this kind of DM. If your player's persuasion is not fitting for the very high persuasion they rolled, maybe you should help them produce a better argument instead of flat denying them, and expecting their frustration to propel them into doing better.

I do help them. Using Knowledge and Insight and previous information that I've already given to them.


As for your example, I can see any number of ways that'd work well enough. A hapless appeal from the players that they're just following orders, an appeal to a greater authority, claiming to know one of the aforementioned guards, anything in that sphere.

Yep. All of those could maybe work. But that's not what's happening. And this is what people in the thread aren't seeming to get.

There isn't an appeal to orders, a greater authority or a leverage of a pre-existing relationship.
There is only dice rolls.
That's the problem.

This is the scenario, and the conversation exactly as I've seen it
"Can I persuade the NPC?"
Well, it'll be difficult. How are you going to persuade him?
"I rolled a 26."
...That's not what I asked you.

[JoeJ]

This is the scenario, and the conversation exactly as I've seen it
"Can I persuade the NPC?"
Well, it'll be difficult. How are you going to persuade him?
"I rolled a 26."
...That's not what I asked you.


"A 26 hunh? The guard is impressed with your high roll, but he's on duty and doesn't have time to play dice with you. Are you going to try and talk to him?"

[opaopajr]

Not all options are equal.
and
The context will always matter. :smallcool:

Tell me what you're doing and I'll tell you if it is possible. And if it is, I will tell you at what difficulty I expect for that exact manner. :smallsmile:

"I Nature check that seaweed's life cycle against my understanding of squirrel nesting lore!" :smallamused:
"The answer is 'No'." :smalltongue:
"But I threw dice at it! :smalleek: And it was high, too!" :smallfrown:
"And this is how I gore you with my GM Viking Hat." :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

Ask player to outline the rhetorical/persuasive approach he's taking, if not act out the exchange. Ask for the same level of detail that you ask of their combat actions.

If you cannot imagine this character failing to do it, auto success. No roll.

If it makes perfect sense and really ought to work, advantage

If it's a longshot, disadvantage

If it makes your blood boil with how stupid and impossible it is, let him know that before he attempts. If he does it anyway, failure.

Give some enemies intended to be socially difficult things like loyalty, honest grievances, descriptions of the party, orders to shoot first and ask questions never, and so on. Plan ahead with why a character is trying to destroy the party, and what could possibly convince him otherwise. Maybe he just has a high price, or just needs the bounty to pay someone to heal his sick kids (disease/curse-removal powers or a bribe might be usable here), or is more susceptible to some rhetorical approaches than others.

Give players chances to figure out what might or might not work. Insight, knowledge, and tool skills could tell a PC something like "bounty hunters in this region will happily bring in the wrong target if it fools the client and is less risky than fighting the real one, so looking weak and saying you're the wrong guy might only encourage him"

Some actions might take multiple parts (i.e. get enemy to stop attacking long enough to listen, then convince them you're not the droids they're looking for, then convince that it's worth risking his neck to turn back empty-handed, and convince that you won't just shoot him once his back is turned)

Persuasion is not mind-control, but it is still a thing. Respect efforts to talk through conflicts the same as you respect efforts to fight through them. Just as solid walls cannot be fought and destroyed by normal means (you may need to find a door or get a siege weapon), some people may only be persuaded to neglect their duty by extraordinary means (get a false document, spoof orders from his boss, know where his family lives, etc)

If you simply wish to run an asocial dungeon crawling meat-grinder with almost no ability to ever talk out of trouble (an entirely legitimate desire), then talk with your players and allow them to mulligan character options relating to social skills so they do not feel cheated

[Reynaert]

Yep. All of those could maybe work. But that's not what's happening. And this is what people in the thread aren't seeming to get.

There isn't an appeal to orders, a greater authority or a leverage of a pre-existing relationship.
There is only dice rolls.
That's the problem.

You seem to be reading a lot more into the original post than others. And, IMO, ignoring some bits too (specifically the 'he just talked to the guy and pulled a not-the-droids maneuver' which -to me- indicates there was actual roleplaying and the player did indeed describe how he was going to deceive the npc, but to you apparently indicates the player went 'I deceive him. Rolled a 30').

[GloatingSwine]

Personally each time I wonder if an action is "impossible", I ask myself: could a Deity perform the action?

Sometimes with persuasion the answer is still a hard no. Even Cyric can't persude a paladin that murdering a baby would be a total giggle and they should do it right now.


Really the question this thread should have asked is when to counter a party face. And that's going to depend on how much your players are looking forward to having fights and whether they're looking forward to having this fight right now.

If they wanna fight, then the dragon's not listening, if they're out on their arse with no resources and just rolled "giddy as a schoolgirl" on their stealth checks, then maybe it is.

[Hail Tempus]

"A 26 hunh? The guard is impressed with your high roll, but he's on duty and doesn't have time to play dice with you. Are you going to try and talk to him?" Right, walking up to the equivalent of the fantasy Secret Service in an attempt to get them to let you into the fantasy White House is not going to work, no matter how high you roll on your deception check. Charisma skills are not mind control- there are plenty of scenarios where the answer is going to be "no" regardless of how charismatic you are.

Now, if the party goes through a heist scenario where they steal uniforms and credentials and take other actions to make the guards think they are someone else who should be allowed in, then a deception check might work......

[MrStabby]

Right, walking up to the equivalent of the fantasy Secret Service in an attempt to get them to let you into the fantasy White House is not going to work, no matter how high you roll on your deception check. Charisma skills are not mind control- there are plenty of scenarios where the answer is going to be "no" regardless of how charismatic you are.

Now, if the party goes through a heist scenario where they steal uniforms and credentials and take other actions to make the guards think they are someone else who should be allowed in, then a deception check might work......

Yeah, guards will still need that day's password. You might be able to bluff having forgotten it but at best it just means they will turn you away rather than kill you for it.

[Slipperychicken]

Right, walking up to the equivalent of the fantasy Secret Service in an attempt to get them to let you into the fantasy White House is not going to work, no matter how high you roll on your deception check.

You can get through a surprising amount of security IRL by just looking like you're supposed to be there, maybe saying that you lost your ID or are late to a meeting, or just "piggybacking" on someone who does have access by following them in when they open a door

With a decent cover-story or posing as maintenance people (even when no maintenance request was actually called or scheduled), thieves IRL can trick many types of security into letting them in, or literally handing them keys to the building.

The majority just aren't motivated or competent enough, or they're working in systems where they have to make judgement calls and can't verify everything that's supposed to get through the door. That goes extra in any kind of nonindustrial setting where a guard can't simply radio his boss to verify that someone's presence is legit, and doing so might involve wasting the time of a supervisor who is impatient or abusive.

The idea of truly rigorous, intelligent, and competent security personnel is tempting for a GM who feels threatened by PCs social skills, but there's a risk of overuse too.

[Hail Tempus]

The idea of truly rigorous, intelligent, and competent security personnel is tempting for a GM who feels threatened by PCs social skills, but there's a risk of overuse too. Yeah, I'm thinking more along the lines of treating a scenario like a heist from a movie. The party needs to get into an important location which is guarded by competent, dedicated guards. Rather than letting it come down to just one roll of a social skill, the party needs to work together to gather information, steal uniforms and the like in order to allow the party face to actually make that roll.

I've done things where I set the DC for something really high (like 30), but for each of A, B and C that the party pulls off before the roll, the DC is reduced by 5. The party face is still crucial to success, but the rest of the party also gets to participate.

[VonKaiserstein]

There's always bait- either to trap them, or to turn them into a trap. A character with those skills, intent on abusing them, will invariably make a reputation for themselves- one that will make them desirable to many unsavory folks. Those folks, armed with their knowledge of the situation, may send thugs that don't speak his language to bust up his throat, or otherwise impair his charisma with injuries. Failing that, they may have defenses prepared- pepper spray, or horribly dusty lairs, anything to impart disadvantage on normal speech. This could even be done naturally, if you set the adventure on glacial plains, noxious swamps, or within the city, have it take place in a slaughterhouse or midden, anything to inflict the idea of having trouble breathing or speaking to them.

And for the trap- surely a character that wants to abuse this power will also be looking for ways to enhance it. Give them some sort of +charisma or +deception item. The catch? It is cursed, and becomes stuck to them and alters their language to something obscure. I'm inclined to Drow, and some sort of magical nose cover or replacement just so you can use the pun you cut off your nose to, as Michael Scott would say, spiderface.

[Flashkannon]

I do help them. Using Knowledge and Insight and previous information that I've already given to them.

Yep. All of those could maybe work. But that's not what's happening. And this is what people in the thread aren't seeming to get.

There isn't an appeal to orders, a greater authority or a leverage of a pre-existing relationship.
There is only dice rolls.
That's the problem.

This is the scenario, and the conversation exactly as I've seen it
"Can I persuade the NPC?"
Well, it'll be difficult. How are you going to persuade him?
"I rolled a 26."
...That's not what I asked you.
I'm saying maybe you, as the DM, if they roll high and have no plan in mind for what they say, could suggest something bare-bones, and ask them to flesh it out.

"Can I persuade the NPC?"
Well, it'll be difficult. How are you going to persuade him?
"I rolled a 26."
"That's a pretty good roll! You know, he does have a pet dog you saw earlier..."
"Oh! I pretend to be a fellow dog lover to get him to lower his guard!"

The only real problem you'd ever run into with that approach is the uncreative (unfortunate, but maybe they just need a little bit of a crutch here) and those who petulantly refuse to roleplay at all. And that... well, that's a much larger problem.

I guess what I'm saying is maybe you gave them information earlier, but if they're falling back on mechanics they trust rather than venturing onto the more interpretive ground of roleplaying, maybe they need some help turning that information into a plan? You do run the risk of making the players reliant on your plans, but I find that also suggesting obviously bad plans on occasion keeps that habit from forming too strongly without encouraging them to ignore your suggestions completely.

[HappyDaze]

I'm finding that the best way to prevent social skills-based characters/groups from breezing through everything is to make consequences for failure rather than just having a failed check result in "no change" to the relationship. Now if they want to roll to get their way, they have to accept that failure means that not only is the Deception/Intimidation/Persuasion not moving the other to do what they want, it actually makes the NPC's attitude worse because people don't like to be manipulated.

[MaxWilson]

I'm saying maybe you, as the DM, if they roll high and have no plan in mind for what they say, could suggest something bare-bones, and ask them to flesh it out.

"Can I persuade the NPC?"
Well, it'll be difficult. How are you going to persuade him?
"I rolled a 26."
"That's a pretty good roll! You know, he does have a pet dog you saw earlier..."
"Oh! I pretend to be a fellow dog lover to get him to lower his guard!"

This sounds problematic in the same way as making tactical suggestions to players during combat: if the DM is playing both sides of the table, you run straight into the Czege Principle. "When one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun."

Giving suggestions for solutions to the players sounds like a good idea in principle, but AFAIK I have never done it and not regretted it afterwards.

IMO the only time it is a good idea for a DM to dictate the PC's actions is when creating problems, not resolving them, and even there you have to be careful to get player buy-in.

"Hey Roger, I want to give you a scenario to handle but it requires you to be alone at first when it happens. Is it safe for me to assume Rognar [Roger's PC] would step away from the party and go behind a tree if he wanted to go to the bathroom?"

"Yeah, but I wouldn't go very far away, just like 30' or so."

"Okay, Rognar has just completed doing his business, but then something catches your eye: you see a shiny glint of something buried in the dirt, and when you pick it up it turns out to be a key. You look around some more and find what looks like a keyhole in a large boulder nearby. You're pretty sure nobody else [of the PCs] has noticed what you're doing yet. What do you do next?"

[Flashkannon]

This sounds problematic in the same way as making tactical suggestions to players during combat: if the DM is playing both sides of the table, you run straight into the Czege Principle. "When one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun."

Giving suggestions for solutions to the players sounds like a good idea in principle, but AFAIK I have never done it and not regretted it afterwards.

IMO the only time it is a good idea for a DM to dictate the PC's actions is when creating problems, not resolving them, and even there you have to be careful to get player buy-in.
I suppose so. I use it as a crutch, when my players are flailing, after they flail a little bit. It also helps, I find, that it's never (and should never be) the solution to the problem, and usually comes in the form of a reminder of a fact they already know. Well, either that, or I suggest something wildly reckless.

[Slipperychicken]

"Can I persuade the NPC?"
Well, it'll be difficult. How are you going to persuade him?
"I rolled a 26."
"That's a pretty good roll! You know, he does have a pet dog you saw earlier..."
"Oh! I pretend to be a fellow dog lover to get him to lower his guard!"


Better practice: Only allow rolls when you prompt for them, after clarifying what the player is doing.

"Can I persuade the NPC?"
"Well, it'll be difficult. How are you going to persuade him?
"I rolled a 26."
"I didn't tell you to roll yet. Your approach will determine things like advantage, disadvantage, or whether it is even possible. How are you going to persuade him?"
"Uhh, I pretend to be a fellow dog lover?"
"Now you may roll persuasion. This time with advantage for cleverly exploiting the NPC's interests"
"I uhh, got a 24 this time"
"After about ten minutes of in-depth conversation about pet ownership, the NPC seems to trust you and lets you know where the cult meeting-center is located"

[Reynaert]

Sometimes with persuasion the answer is still a hard no. Even Cyric can't persude a paladin that murdering a baby would be a total giggle and they should do it right now.

The random roll is to determine all the little factors that go into the persuasion, including, for example, unknown and unknowable facts about the paladin in question. If the player actually rolls really high on persuasion with a line like that, maybe it turns out the paladin had a childhood trauma involving Giggles the Clown, and any mention makes him go into a killing haze for a second, in which he inadvertently kills the baby.

Or do what some other game systems do. The player declares his intent to persuade the paladin but doesn't yet say how. The DM calls for a roll. It's really high. *only then* do the player ad DM cooperate to narrate exactly how the persuasion took place.



This sounds problematic in the same way as making tactical suggestions to players during combat: if the DM is playing both sides of the table, you run straight into the Czege Principle. "When one person is the author of both the character's adversity and its resolution, play isn't fun."

You're mixing up levels of abstraction here.

'I try to persuade the guard' is equivalent in level to 'I try to attack the guard'.

Whereas 'I feed the guard a line about his favourite pet' is in line with 'I duck under the guards lunge and riposte into his armpit'

The first is something that the players (should) decide themselves. The second is something that is usually cooperatively done, sometimes narrated by the DM, sometimes by the player, but it is certainly the case that the player should be able to count on help from his co-players (DM included).

Now, I've seen cases where a player narrates a really cool way they attack before the roll, and for that the DM gives them some kind of bonus. But that's giving a really unfair advantage to extraverts and/or people the DM happens t like a lot. If you like stuff like that, go play Feng Shui or something.

[JoeJ]

'I try to persuade the guard' is equivalent in level to 'I try to attack the guard'.

That's only true if you're in a situation where success in the encounter requires multiple successful persuasion attempts, with the entire party participating. Otherwise it's more like "I pick the lock," which is fine once in a while as long as you remember to let each of the other players do their one-shot things sometimes too.

[Flashkannon]

Better practice: Only allow rolls when you prompt for them, after clarifying what the player is doing.
I find this decreases spontaneity in general. Sure, the players know that they can ask to do an action, but... I've had my players just sit around instead of examining something because they thought I was going to call for an investigation.

Also, it makes it absolutely obvious when an NPC is lying, if you always call for an insight check whenever one is contextually necessary.

[Magicspook]

Something I see that keeps coming up in this thread is people who roll persuasion before the DM even says they can ("i want to persuade the guard" - okay how are you going to do that? - "I rolled a 26"). I think that is where the problems are already starting. Make it clear that at your table, skill checks are rolled when you say they are.

At my table, it goes like this:
"I would like to tell the bandit captain it's a bad idea to attack us."
Okay, what skill do you think is most appropriate? Do you want to scare him off or convince him you are stronger?
"I walk up to him and look down at him while flexing my muscles, so intimidation"
Allright, roll intimidation then.

Within our group, the players rarely ask for a check. They describe their characters' intent, and I determine whether a check is needed and which skill it'll be. If they disagree, they tell me so. Some players give detailed descriptions (like some people here seem to have very strong opinions about), others don't.

[JoeJ]

I find this decreases spontaneity in general. Sure, the players know that they can ask to do an action, but... I've had my players just sit around instead of examining something because they thought I was going to call for an investigation.

Also, it makes it absolutely obvious when an NPC is lying, if you always call for an insight check whenever one is contextually necessary.

Times like this, when rolling the dice would give too much meta-information to the players, are one of the reasons passive checks exist.

[Flashkannon]

Times like this, when rolling the dice would give too much meta-information to the players, are one of the reasons passive checks exist.
I do use passive insight quite a deal, actually, and found it useful, but this is more for situations where a PC decides they're actively suspicious, and wants to go looking for any misdirection or lie. For actions, it should really be their prerogative to roll Insight as many times as they like - I can understand wanting to gate it DM-side, but that takes a lot of processing.

[sabelo2000]

Leaving aside mechanics discussions, I think we should also address the meta-DM aspect here of "the player nerfed my encounter" or "a thing was supposed to happen and now it's not." Both of these are an erroneous perspective for a DM, but can be learned from.


So what's the best way to somehow nerf that skill before the rogue does something like up-ending a boss fight with a red dragon by telling the dragon that all of its minions are secretly pawns of a silver dragon?

So you've crafted an intricate, epic combat encounter that's supposed to last the whole session and be the stuff of stories for years to come. But at the beginning of the session, the Face makes an impassioned speech, comes up with some really compelling points, presents an enticing alternative, and rolls a Nat 20. What do you do?

IME, you balance your ego vs. the players and then lean further toward the players. An hours-long melee combat may be fun, but D&D is full of hours-long melee combats. The stories that my players still talk about years later? When our noob Sorcerer nixed an entire dungeon with a single Grease spell. When an entire army surrendered to our Paladin. When our Orc failed his intimidate check because his legend had actually outgrown him and nobody believed he was the fabled hero ("But William Wallace is seven feet tall!"). To draw on your own example: Why is "These are not the droids you're looking for" still quoted? Because it was cool and unexpected. Remember when Skywalker tried the same thing against Jabba (and Qui-Gon tried it against Watto) and it DIDN'T work, it became boring and we all just wanted to get past it and get to the obviously-inevitable fight scene.



he...just talked to a guy who was supposed to be able to easily overpower the party,

WHY was the BBEG "supposed" to overpower the party? Was this meant to be a TPK game-ender, or somehow move the plot along? Here's a generic DM-ing tip: Have Backup Plans!

Assume the BBEG was "supposed to" thrash the party, so they wake up in the dungeon along with an equally-thrashed knight who complains that now he'll never recover the MacGuffin to save his doomed village. They now have a plot hook, AND a first-hand respect for the BBEG. But what if they never fight? They'll never get the plot hook! They won't respect the BBEG! Your whole plot arc is ruined!

Wrong.

They talk their way past the BBEG. They leave the area peacefully. Then, on their way through the woods back to town, they encounter a battered knight breathing his last at the side of the road. He was questing for the MacGuffin to save his doomed village, but was defeated by the BBEG and left for dead. Moreover, he is in fact the legendary Sir Smashalot, who single-handedly slayed the Great Wurm of Nowheresville! And he was casually dispatched by your BBEG, and his dying wish is for the PCs to save his village.

Plot Hook? Check. BBEG Respect? Check. Do the players have to know this was your backup plan? Nope. But they do get a cool story to tell, and YOU get a cool story to tell, and the game goes on.

[JoeJ]

I do use passive insight quite a deal, actually, and found it useful, but this is more for situations where a PC decides they're actively suspicious, and wants to go looking for any misdirection or lie. For actions, it should really be their prerogative to roll Insight as many times as they like - I can understand wanting to gate it DM-side, but that takes a lot of processing.

I would explain to the player that if they want to decide when to actively roll, that has to be instead of benefiting from passive insight, not in addition to it. If they still want to do it, so be it. That PC only has a chance to detect a lie when the player is suspicious. If they are suspicious often enough to annoy me or the other players, I'll overrule them and go back to doing it passively.

It's like searching for traps. You can be constantly checking using your passive score, or you can tell me where you want to search and roll (until the other players get sick of you rolling for every step you take and make you quit). You can't do both.

[Cheesegear]

'I try to persuade the guard' is equivalent in level to 'I try to attack the guard'.

And that's true.
However, running a social encounter like that, in a role-playing game, feels wrong. It feels a lot like rolling number generators at each other, and whoever rolls highest, is the winner. I can play almost any video game I want, if that's the experience.

Another anecdotal example
So, during the campaign, I've given the players the following information about the NPC:
1. Motivation. He wants [the gem].
2. Ideal. He doesn't like getting his own hands dirty, because he doesn't like putting himself in personal danger.

My players know this, because it came up in previous conversation with other NPCs. So, after a fairly unlucky encounter against the NPC's mooks, the party stands before the NPC.

Player 1: Do we really want to fight him?
Player 2: I don't think so. Or, at least, not right now. Maybe we can come back when we have our spell slots and our Paladin isn't on less than half HPs.
Player 3: Do you reckon we can Persuade - or rather, beg - him not to fight?
Player 2: Okay. We know he wants [the gem]. But we just slaughtered our way through his men. So now it's just him, right? He could probably get the gem himself, but if he doesn't have help, he might end up putting himself in danger. We don't want to fight him, 'cause we're half-dead. He probably wouldn't want to fight us, either. Sure, he could kill one or two of us, but then he'd be dead. And I don't think that risk-reward adds up. He's probably got Locate Object, and that's how he's beelining towards [the gem]...
Me: :smallwink:
Player 2 (cont.): 'Kay. So we show him something of ours. Like [Player 3]'s special box...Thing. He lets us live, and we go get [the gem]. Then, in an hour, he casts Locate Object. If he can't ping us, he'll know we've ****ed off, and screwed him over. Yes? So he's got insurance. Then he comes after us and kills us all, yeah? Unless we want [the gem] for ourselves? Then, like, we can get [the gem], meet up with the NPC again, and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. I'm sure once we have the gem in our hands, he'll refuse to deal with us outright, until we give it to him, or, he'll just attack us...
Me: ...That would be...Accurate, to what you know about him.
Player 3: Right. Sounds like a plan. We don't deal with him now, or rather, we deal with him now, and we - potentially - fight later?
Player 1: But later he might have more backup?
Player 3: Yeah. But at least none of us die now. Okay [Cheesegear], can I roll Persuade now?
Me: Go for it *recalculates a DC based on the plan I was just given*.

Player 3 is the one making the roll. Even though it's almost all Player 2's plan. But, fact is, there is a plan, and a general intent of what they want to say. So I know how to progress their story, in such a way that they - the players, not me, the DM - drove the story.
The group helps each other.

You may as well say; There's a puzzle in the room, with a series of chains, that seem to match certain patterns on the wall. You also see a series of pipes that might contain water or gas.
"I roll high on my Intelligence check and thus, solve the puzzle. Next room, please."
You didn't solve anything. You didn't even pull on a chain to see what it did. :smallmad:

[patchyman]

I do use passive insight quite a deal, actually, and found it useful, but this is more for situations where a PC decides they're actively suspicious, and wants to go looking for any misdirection or lie. For actions, it should really be their prerogative to roll Insight as many times as they like - I can understand wanting to gate it DM-side, but that takes a lot of processing.

In my games, if the players are suspicious, or even want to know what a person is about, I tell them to roll Insight.

Even if the person isn’t lying, a good Insight roll can tell you a lot about them.

[Tanarii]

Use the DMG p 245 table, put a hard cap on what can be achieved as a DC 20 check. In other words, don’t extrapolate the table for DC 30 check result.

Thus most you could get out of a hostile person would be “The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.”

[Slipperychicken]

I find this decreases spontaneity in general. Sure, the players know that they can ask to do an action, but... I've had my players just sit around instead of examining something because they thought I was going to call for an investigation.

Also, it makes it absolutely obvious when an NPC is lying, if you always call for an insight check whenever one is contextually necessary.

The first point is relevant. Each table ends up with different etiquette about how to connect actions with game-mechanics. Your players might be suffering from a lack of understanding about how examining works: investigating even with a low modifier is unlikely to hurt your character, whereas simply never interacting with an object is likely to miss out on some reward, content, or progress. Talking with them about that may be advisable.

For the second, if players' access meta-knowledge is a concern (i.e. if they cannot be trusted to maintain the separation of IC and OOC info), then the GM is best off never permitting players to control the use of insight mechanics themselves after all, instead simply recording the relevant modifiers in advance and resolving the relevant ability checks in secret. A computer RNG (or set of pre-recorded random numbers) may be desirable for this purpose as unlike dice-rolling it's nearly impossible for players to distinguish from checking notes.

[Slipperychicken]

Use the DMG p 235 table, put a hard cap on what can be achieved as a DC 20 check. In other words, don’t extrapolate the table for DC 30 check result.

Thus most you could get out of a hostile person would be “The creature does as asked as long as no risks or sacrifices are involved.”

I don't know what book you're looking at, but my D&D 5th edition DMG has a table on 238 which goes up to an example DC of 30 as "nearly impossible"

Page 235 is the beginning of chapter 8 "Running the Game" and does not contain any tables

[Tanarii]

I don't know what book you're looking at, but my D&D 5th edition DMG has a table on 238 which goes up to an example DC of 30 as "nearly impossible"

Page 235 is the beginning of chapter 8 "Running the Game" and does not contain any tables
p245. i'll fix the post

[VonDragon]

best thing to remember is these skills aren't magical charms, example from one of the games I ran (3.5 but close enough) the players tried to convince a sacred guardian who has guarded an artifact for over 1000 years and rolled a 20, instead he just offered to leave with their lives intact as it was not in the npcs character. just because the players want something to work doesn't mean it will, persuasion, intimidate and deception just may make a more favourable situation

[ByzantiumBhuka]

Thanks to everyone who replied here. I've learned a lot about how to handle social interactions in campaigns.

[Nagog]

Unless he's got a way around it, the best counter is probably a Language Barrier. in Pathfinder there was Undercommon for most people that live underground, if you need to you could create something like that, or regional dialects.
Beyond that, you can't reason with Constructs.
If he convinces the Red Dragon that all his minions are secretly servants of the enemy silver dragon, the Red Dragon incinerates his current minions then wages a one-dragon assault (Still a force to be reckoned with) on the Silver Dragon. When the lie is discovered, they now have 2 Dragons who want him dead and now they know not to listen to him. Every action has consequences, the bigger the action, the bigger the consequences. If they aren't careful, they'll lie themselves into a corner.