[RPG] What to do when a player roleplays an extremely persuasive argument, but flubs their Persuasion check

dnd-5egm-preparationgm-techniquesskills

I have been the DM of a wonderful group of Stack Exchange friends playing an urban fantasy campaign of D&D 5e for some time now, and a question came up in our group Discord that has got me thinking about how I should form a strategy for it.

One of my players, whose character is Sherri, has a very high Persuasion skill (+5) and has been itching for more chances to use it in-game. I'm admittedly often a bit bad at giving Sherri the chance to do so, because the player roleplays her so effectively in conversation that sometimes I just mentally skip over having them roll for whether Sherri's argument was effective. However, I want to get better about incorporating more of Sherri's Persuasion rolls and making sure she gets to use her charisma skills so that the player feels good about investing into those abilities mechanically.

The problem arises, however, when I consider what happens and how to work it into the narrative if the player roleplays an extremely effective/persuasive argument but then flubs the Persuasion roll.

For example, we recently had a situation where a kenku was spilling some information about the Evil Organization to the players and "borrowed" the cell phone of an NPC the party is attached to, then called them and mimicked that NPC's voice to lure them to a neutral location to have a conversation. At several points in the conversation the players were trying to get information out of the kenku, including making persuasive statements, where I absolutely could and should have had them roll Persuasion, Deception or Intimidation.

"Why don't we head inside to discuss this, dear?" Sherri suggests, and goes to unlock the door of the library.

"I say nothing until we have a deal. This is not from the Dreaming Brethren. This is from me." The bird blinks rapidly again. "Am in danger just for meeting you. Was not supposed to do it."

It didn't work out that way, but I had several planned routes for this encounter, some of which would have ended with the kenku fleeing if the social encounter had gone sideways or they had spooked her into thinking the party couldn't be trusted with her information. I had planned out several "persuasion points" that, if the party hit on at least one of them, would have persuaded the kenku to trust them – i.e. showing they are powerful enough to protect her, telling her she won't be harmed, not having any visible weapons, and so on. The party did well at gradually persuading the kenku that they were trustworthy and that the kenku wouldn't be harmed for bringing them what she knew. At any point during that process, however, one of the players could have roleplayed being very persuasive and hit on one of those planned "persuasion points"… but then rolled a 3 on Persuasion. I didn't have a plan for what to do if that happened. Does that mean…

  • …the character stumbled over their intended words or made a Freudian slip?
  • …the character's argument came out correctly but they accidentally did something threatening, like subconsciously drop a hand onto their weapon?
  • …the NPC misread their intentions or misunderstood their argument?

How do I work into the narrative a good argument but a bad roll?

Best Answer

Options, Options, Options

A game master has numerous options for resolving the potential dissonance between a spoken arguments and contrary dice results - options that work with either part being poor.

That said, it seems relevant to reiterate my primary advice for game mastery (one of a half-dozen guidelines for all GMs and nearly all games): Never call for a dice roll if you are not prepared to deal with extreme results (critical success or critical failure).

Mechanical resolutions I have seen used, and their effects, described in no particular order:

  1. Ignore Dice: For really smooth-talking tables, this can be a viable and successful option, removing the onus of speaking from the characters and putting it entirely on the players. Benefits: This can speed up play, improve the quality of dialogue, increase immersion, and enhance character relationships.
    Drawbacks: This can also make social mechanics worthless (and can unbalance the related game mechanics), exclude less smooth players, make gaming more stressful for socially tired or introverted players, result in the dissonance of a Charisma 6 non-proficient Wizard that is the most beloved orator in the kingdom, and can be inconsistent as the Game Master's attitudes (and thus the attitudes of literally everyone else in the setting) will inevitably shift over time.
  2. Ignore Role Play: For tables with low social skills, language issues, clashing cultural expectations, or a problem with GM bias this can be a successful resolution.
    Benefits: This is generally fair (the only place to fudge the outcomes is the DC), outcomes are usually consistent, the results are pretty fast to resolve ("I make friends with the knight; 17"), and the resolution is consistent with the associated game mechanics.
    Drawbacks: This can feel stifling for avid role players, generally makes social encounters less memorable and less engaging, and will often make the entire campaign less memorable.
  3. Reward Persuasive RP with Improved Rolls: Using the game mechanics to make a persuasive RP more likely to succeed (lower the DC, grant Advantage, etc.). In these cases, failures are going to be the result of a misplaced word or idea causing the other party to react without considering the logic of the argument.
    Benefits: Most game systems have mechanics for these kinds of 'ad hoc' modifications, this rewards heavy RP players without stressing the light RP players, and it is easier to be consistent and fair than with only RP.
    Drawbacks: The primary drawback is having to improvise a reason the argument didn't succeed - fortunately, the internet has shown us dozens of reasons people will ignore a persuasive argument (clash with fundamental beliefs, inattention, triggering other memories, found the color of the speaker's clothing offensive, thinking about their morning pastry, etc.) and the other players can help with that justification.
  4. Resolve the Dice, THEN Role Play: By resolving the mechanics, the player can alter their narration to fit the established mechanical resolution.
    Benefits: This can be a lot of fun, especially for players that enjoy describing how their characters fail, and removes the potential dissonance.
    Drawbacks: Unfortunately, not everyone can readily describe why their clever plans did not work. Similarly, some players do not respond well to other people describing their character's failures, which can turn into a social friction point. This can also discourage planning, and social engagement, since the outcomes are known before the fast talking starts.

How Does This Help You?

The four resolution techniques provide a framework for resolving social interactions.

Based upon your descriptions, I would recommend you use either the third or fourth methods.

Generally a character should fail in a manner consistent with their abilities.
When a strong character fails to lift something, it is generally described as the result of overconfidence (used a showy but inefficient technique), laziness (didn't actually try), or surprise information (the object was super-heavy or secured in place). When a weak character fails to lift something, it is generally enough to highlight that the character is weak.
Similar guidelines can be applied to social failures. If an inept character fails, despite a good idea, then they probably didn't convey their good idea or the other party ignored them because of the character's poor social presence. If a suave character fails then it should generally be because they were lazy, overconfident, or caught by unknown information.

Example 1: Terry Silvertongue gives an impassioned speech about homes and righteousness to inspire the knightly order to do battle. It fails. So why did it fail? Terry's rousing speech may have been delivered while lounging at a banquet table, sipping wine - showing a laziness that the knights resent and is at odds with the text of the speech. Or Terry may have presented the speech in a poor fashion (via poetry or song) or at a poor time (while the knights were drunk) because Terry was too confident that it would work. Or Terry may have chosen a bad argument for his audience - outsiders with mercenary attitudes, unwilling to risk life and limb for the 'greater good' or strangers that are often rude to the knights.
Example 2: Mortimer the Artist of Confidence tries to bluff a nobleman, and his scandalous date, into believing that the adventurers are agents employed by other nobility to handle issues surrounding a plot device that the nobleman is aware of. Mortimer fails. Why? The nobleman became incensed at the implication that agents of a mere viscountess would have any influence over his own behavior, and that these cads might bring scandal upon himself and his forbidden love - the surprise information that the nobleman's pride was harmed by the details of the ruse.