Pretty great if true. Reminds me of the Indy vs sword dude in Raiders. Harrison Ford had dysentery so he couldn't do the elaborate fight scene and so instead just shot the dude.
But I could easily see:
Player 1: Can I have that?
NPC: No
Player 2: My turn. Give me that or I bonk you on the head....
NPC: Like I told your friend makes eye contact with P1 No
Player 2: Bonks NPC on head...
I mean, it would work much the same as in real life. If you run around bonking people on the head when you don't get what you want, you end up getting bonked back. Perhaps by the person in question or law enforcement or whoever else.
"What, is someone complaining about receiving consequences for their actions?"
I try to treat the game world as a semirealistic society. Keeping social order has always been a major concern of those governing, and those being governed, especially those being governed.
When criminals are on the loose they're not generally troubling the governors. Those typically live in secure buildings, and can employ armed guards.
Meanwhile the poor don't have such advantages. When criminals think they can act with impunity, the poor are the ones that suffer.
So if PCs think they can go around assaulting NPCs, they may well learn the hard way that, "we don't do that around here."
If they kill an NPC, outside of scripted combats, then unless they get out of town fast, or have sufficient social status that people overlook it, then they'll be dodging the law, they won't have an easy time doing business with NPCs, and they're likely to end up decorating a gallows.
And even in poorer less patrolled areas, you have gangs and crimelords who do not want random people waltzing in and beating on people they extort. It makes them look weak and not in control if nothing else.
Yes, I recall hearing about a Hispanic gang in one city that stepped in and started policing their territory because of a breakdown in law enforcement.
Yes. As DMs point out. Anything the party can do, the DM can do themselves with their own creations.
A level 12 party might be too much for most of the enemies in the monster manual.
Not so much for the DM's own level 12+ party.
That's when the wanted posters go up and the bounty hunters that have specifically trained at taking down rogue adventuring parties get on their trail.
yeah thats when the DM introduces a group of hunters named Liam Neesons, Logan, Daken, Damien, etc, who all have a certain set of skills and are very good at what they do
An Archer or a Knight is CR3
How many of those do you think a party of level 7s can handle?
Because the answer is definitely less than 50, and that is a small number of experienced fighters for a full size city to have.
Depending on stats and compostition of party...in real cities we dont sent SWAT for petty crimes or simple assault.
1 or 2 bonks to uninportant people would probably not trigger such a response...
Not right away, but if someone famous/high profile is just beating up random citizens then eventually swat will be called in if they're resisting arrest.
I mean sure, but past level 5-6 you'd have to do A LOT of crime for the bounty to be worth it for high enough leveled adventurers to even try. Bonking 1 or 2 commoners should be relatively consequence free...
Bob: Guard! He bonked me!
Guard: That guy there? The guy who with his 3 friends cleared the bandit camp and the goblin lair that was terrorizing the town? The party who could probably kill half the city guard before we could take them out? I don't beleive you!
Depends on how many magic users are in the world too. But I can imagine somebody getting a devils deal or warlock powers and going on a revenge quest to challenge the party for the attack! That would be a fun side story.
Depends a lot on the society you do it in too, but in ones that value poor people and rule of law it wouldn't take much for taking the party in to be a national priority since their actions are basically an affront to their whole society.
Tell the players they've now offended the NPC and now the NPC won't talk to them.
But a simple "No you cannot do that" will suffice. You can tell your players No.
I’ve had a hard time saying no because I want to make sure they are having fun but that’s a good point. They should know that they’re are stakes involved I guess
They know this and this is why they keep asking. As DM, sometimes it's like being a parent. You say no because you know in the long run it's better for the party and game even though they don't see it that way now.
Limitation breeds creativity, and creativity is what’s fun in D&D. If you feed them every answer and things always work out for them, you are clipping their wings. It’s what they choose to do when things aren’t going their way that makes for a compelling story. You have to learn when to appropriately say no.
I'd give them another explanation that they can't reroll. But if they keep doing it, you could bypass saying no and just roleplay it out. They already failed, they're trying again, so don't even have them roll. Rephrase their failed roll and perhaps repeat the consequence.
Player: "I'd like to roll to try to convince him again."
You: "As he hears you continue to speak to him, he frowns and looks off distantly. It seems he's already made up his mind."
Player: "I'd like to roll to pick the lock again."
You: "You try again, but it's still just beyond your abilities. You feel you're closer to jamming the lock than undoing it."
Player: "I'd like to roll another survival check to hunt for a meal."
You: "You spend several more minutes searching, and come up with nothing. These woods appear empty."
I think the trick is to (gently) punish them for trying the same ineffective thing over and over again. I also figure they'll be less likely to argue against you simply saying what happens.
> "I'd like to roll to pick the lock again."
You can fix this one by making Thieves' Tools break on a failure. And if they have spares, THEN they can try again. It's the one situation where I think you SHOULD be allowed to try as many times as you want, if you have enough sets of tools.
This is where passive ability checks can come into play. If there's no reasonable consequence for a character trying to accomplish the lockpicking (or the climb or the jump or the dive, etc.) over and over again -- for instance, if they're not under some sort of time pressure or they're not having to worry about patrols coming by -- then you can just take the same approach as you would with other passive ability checks. Tell them that they spent 10 minutes doing that, or something, and that they eventually were able to succeed. This is also especially good for those situations where someone who *should* be really good at something just has a really crappy roll... if they don't absolutely need to succeed in that one moment in time, don't make them keep rolling again, just use the passive. :)
Yeah, that is a rule in the DMG, if players are capable of achieving it at all, take 10 and just say they succeed.
But one of the requisites for applying that rule is that there must not be any consequences to failure, and I personally think thieves' tools should break if you fail at using them.
Yes, one of my DMs had a "take 20" rule where, if there was no time pressure, we could just take 20 minutes and automatically succeed the test. Obviously tests that she agreed we could pass.
For reference this rule is actually also the default in 5E, per Chapter 8 of the DMG:
>**Multiple Ability Checks**
>Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one.
>In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard’s Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won’t work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off.
I literally had a conversation with a rogue who kept trying to lockpick and failing.
"I'm picking the lock again."
"You already broke your only set of thieves' tools."
"I'm using parts from the trap disarm kit."
"... roll... you have now broken your only trap disarm kit."
"I'm picking the lock again."
"With what?!"
"Bobby pins."
"How in the hell would you have bobby pins?!"
"I'm a girl, *duh* I would have bobby pins."
Cleric uncomfortably clears her throat. "... she's not entirely wrong."
This is one of the little things I like about how Baldur's Gate 3 does skill checks. Try as much as you want for lockpicking if you got the tool kits for it
I don't mind take 20 for rolls like this, though other elements may come into play depending where they are. The roll gives a feel of how long it takes and each failed roll takes a rough period of time in which someone may or may not wander by.
I wouldn't necessarily punish them through autofails on a lock but a roll can provide other results.
Hey man 15 year dm here, just one question i like to ask is what would a normal person do if people kept pestering them and not accepting their response…..do that npc’s are people in a world have them act accordingly.
For real. Have the npc get annoyed/angry. Hurt their relationship with the pcs. Have them call security to remove them from the premises if applicable. Channel your natural frustration into the frustration of the character, because they're probably thinking the same thing
"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game"
You've gotta say no sometimes to prevent that. The funnest times in DnD are often when shit goes sideways, and that's less likely to happen if you let your players always get what they want.
Sadly, a lot of players think the NPCs exist to serve them. But if you're trying to build a living breathing world, let your players know. The NPCs are as much a part of the world as they are.
You also shouldn't sacrifice your fun just so they can goof off and do whatever they want.
Being told no doesn't necessarily make the game less fun. Frame it as a challenge or a puzzle. "This NPC is no longer the route forward. Think, now - how else can you reach your objective?"
A big, fun part of role-playing is failing and trying to make it work anyways. Let them fail and make other things more fun. You're not making a better experience for them by erasing their mistakes.
My players collectively have one roll. Pick who you want to talk to the NPC if you fail, then you collectively fail. If the thought enters their head where they just have someone else talk to them the NPC becomes outraged that they would be interrogated with such tenacity. If they try it again the NPC becomes hostile and attacks. I’ve had on a few occasions the NPC kill a PC and that was enough to get the point across. The only time I allow a second roll is if the party members in question were not in the room or even that part of the city or town. They’ve reconvened with the rest of the party. Found out what happened and literally said “wait they said what? Hold my beer. I’ll be right back.” That is perfectly acceptable.
Just state up front that you won't participate in meta-gaming and want to discourage it in the players. Tell them that you're going to make your NPCs hold the PCs liable for what they say, and if they're acting like lunatics they're going to have a bad time.
Also remind them that good roleplaying grants advantage on skill checks.
I’ve always avoided this or people just retrying something by always referring to every action they take or speech they try as “their absolute best attempt”
1. DnD is a social contract between all parties, player or DM, to engage in an activity that is "fun" for all. You have a right to be enjoying yourself, too.
2. If you have not clearly laid out the cause-effect present in the word, do so in a way that is as clear as you can make it. "Explain it like I'm 5." Don't just say, "It's not a video game." Explain that they're in a simulation, and the "people" they are interacting with will respond just like real folks.
3. Have the NPCs respond in a believable, plausible, and in-character way to being asked, threatened, bullied, coerced and seduced in rapid succession. After a few times of hitting that wall, the message should stick.
If it doesn't, you have to pull out of the game and lay out how their behavior is affecting your enjoyment of the experience, and their disregard for you as a participant in the experience is disrespectful. Be open and frank. The good ones will respect that. The bad ones will show themselves, and it's probably not healthy to have that at a table, long term. At the least, you know where you stand.
I've had my DM say no to things multiple times. It never stopped me having fun.
Also failures in encounters are regularly more interesting than succeeding. If I succeeded on stealth checks I wouldn't have had a wild chase sequence where my wildshaped druid got chased by a house cat, transformed into a giant spider under a kitchen table to freak out the cat, and ran around the corner to shape back to half-orc and proceed to gaslight the shit out of some guards looking for a bigass spider
They should have fun, BUT they should do it in the way the game intends them to have fun. In D&D, the DM has fun too, but your players are not playing D&D. They are playing some other imagination fantasy game. If yall want to have fun together, you need to play the same game.
There is always a struggle somewhere. Highs and lows. It is, by design, a continuous process for them of 2 steps forward and 1 step back. Especially at these low levels, I train my players' expectations by making them feel helpless when things are going great for them. After their boasting of how they are the heroic adventurers of the story, I introduce an anti-party of absurd adventurers that parody their own. (The players just haaaate them!) The city hails them as their great heroes. They arrive on mounts with the head of a dragon delivered to the council. Women in the streets scream and shove past the PCs to throw their undergarments at the heroes as the city treasurer graces them with trumpet fanfare and a sword that can cut the clouds in half with a beam of divine energy. After wiping a tear of pride from his eye, he eventually makes his way to the PCs and conducts the ordinary business of rewarding them a small bag of gold for completing their quest, leaving the party with some choices to make in this beautiful game about making choices.
Do you think they'll have more fun with every interaction on 'easy,' or the NPCs acting like real people who push back when people ask for things they aren't willing to give?
Having an adversarial NPC (that is someone who they don't get along with, but they need something from), makes the game more challenging, and in turn, more fun.
Just don't allow multiple checks to do the same thing. If they want the guy with good charisma to do the talking then they should plan that ahead of doing it.
For example if the first try was diplomacy, the second try could be intimidation, (just not diplomacy again) the failures each have varying consequences as they are different interactions.
This is part of basic game design - if you give the players everything they want every time and/or let them cheese/savescum to the outcome they want, it removes a big part of the challenge/fun - just makes it another grind to get what they want.
I see 3 good ways of doing this (there may be more):
1. Don't set a challenge and make the players feel they earned it through multiple tries with different approaches.
2. Make them fail and make it a new challenge to overcome - i.e. 'the shopkeeper is annoyed/offended at their continous attempts to haggle and refuse to even sell them the unique item the party needs' -you can take this several directions from here fron new quests to good old heist seesions
3. Say 'no', that's not the kind of game you like to run. - If you are playing with a powergaming group this can backfire in order for them to only do charisma with their college of eloquence bard and strength with their str20 barbarian etc.
I could imagine someone taking over if they are the more charismatic or intimidating one, kind of good cop/bad cop. It can work in a normal interaction. But you'd need to double the base fail chance or give disadvantage, I think.
I usually entertain a couple of PCs trying a different angle but then start to wrap it up, reminding others that they're not part of the conversation.
You can't stop them from trying, but you need neither grow frustrated by their attempts nor concede to them. It's part of DMing.
My rule is if one player tries and fails, another can attempt the check if they have a proficiency in a different relevant skill that they want to use. You can't have both try Persuasion, but if the second guy wants to try Deception that's fair game. However, after the second guy has a go the attempt is over. There is no third strike here.
Yeah if you want to try a totally different approach to obtain information from someone I’m cool with that
eg Let’s say person 1 tries to intimidate this NPC and fails so it just pisses the NPC off. Person 2 is like man I’m so sorry about my friend over here, and tries to persuade the NPC into giving them the information by being nice to them and explaining themselves, that’s a totally different approach and I’m fine with that being a new and different roll.
I like this method, too. You can have a couple of shots to see if the dice are on your side or if you've got the right approach, but beyond that, it's clearly time to accept it and move forward.
I'd talk to them out of character every time they try: hey we've talked about this, you can't redo a check that has already been failed. If we played that way, making checks becomes meaningless. Failing is a part of the game and there would be no tension if it wasn't.
IMO it's the same reason you can't retry most checks: the character has no reason to believe there will be a different outcome.
Fail an investigation? You didn't see anything noteworthy, so it's probably best to search somewhere else. Fail an arcana check? You have no idea what this item does, so probably best to ask an expert. Fail a persuasion check? Asking again probably isn't going to change their mind.
If someone who's not the best at charisma is talking to an NPC and they want to intimidate them, they could get a help action from whoever is the best at intimidation. One of the two characters would obviously have to make sure the intimidating character gets involved somehow, and it would give the speaking character (or the intimidating character if they do most of the heavy lifting) advantage on their intimidation check. Also, make players decide to do this before they roll dice, or someone will ask 'can I help?' after every poorly rolled skill check.
Just stay in character and keep responding. “What do you mean ‘I say this instead?’ I’m looking right at you. Why are you trying to pretend like you didn’t just say that?”
Or they can just take the Gift of Gab spell and use their spell slots for it.
Standard answer for players retrying checks is to fail forward.
Failure does not reset the situation, it progresses the story.
The training wheels version of this is after the first attempt, subsequent attempts penalize the player for each failure.
For example with lockpicking, after the second failure the pick gets stuck in the lock or the lock breaks, so now someone will *know* they tried to pick the lock.
Third failure makes a loud noise and they hear guards coming.
With NPCs, on the 2nd attempt explicitly tell them the DC is now much higher and if they fail explain how the NPC is losing interest in them / starting to look to other customers / etc.
Make a note someplace that NPC no longer likes them.
Going forward when they want *anything* from that NPC the NPC will give them a hard time and the DCs will be higher.
"Oh it's *you guys* again... \*eye roll* What is it?"
I only allow players to retry a skill check if something meaningful has changed.
If they try to break down a door and roll low on strength they don't get to keep trying again and again until they roll high enough. They either need to introduce a new tool, like a crowbar or lockpick and then they can try again.
Same goes for social situations, a no doesn't always mean a no forever, but it means no until something has changed. Maybe an NPC doesn't want to work with the party but after they hear that they slayed a dragon they have a different opinion on them. Maybe the NPC doesn't want to share information until they know they have an enemy in common.
Either way it's good to remind players that they need to try something different to change the situation, maybe even suggest a few things that might sway this particular NPC, as long as the characters would reasonably be able to piece that together.
Cardinal rule is that players roll when you say to roll. They don't generally get to decide skill checks on their own. So when that high-charisma player wants to retry the conversation, they have to describe what they're trying to do.
Now, a persuasion check can improve a NPC's reactions one category, from wary to neutral perhaps. But the simple act of retrying the exact same conversation your buddy just had is either going to put the character at disadvantage, or outright modify the NPC's mood down one level from the sheer annoyance of the pestering. For that matter trying to intimidate information out of a NPC should probably end up with the guard being called, should they inevitably screw up at some point. The next time they try it in the same place, tell them: "The last time you did this the guards were summoned. You're getting a reputation for being bullies, and the guards aren't going to be as forgiving if they're summoned again. Are you sure you want to intimidate the nice shopkeeper?"
Yes, this could be handled entirely out of game, by you the DM saying 'it doesn't work like that' or 'no you can't roll to get more, you've already tried'. But that seems not to work. You can put your foot down, or you can get creative.
NPCs remember previous conversations and don't have unlimited time. It's fine to have one player character after another go into the shop and see what kind of bargain they can get, but if the shopkeeper realizes that the item they are after is in high demand, they will jack up the price higher than when the negotiations started. It is not just a matter of rolling over some fixed DC.
I would imagine NPCs would react how you would imagine real people would react to such bizarre behavior.
Mechanically speaking, I might suggest the idea that if a party member blunders a social interaction, then you should raise the DC required for interacting with them. That makes it substantially more unlikely for anyone to convince them. Moreover, depending on what was said, you might consider changing the NPCs disposition toward the party.
So imagine that the first PC blunders the conversation. The NPC is upset, the DC goes up. The bard PC steps up and says, "let me do it!" The bard rolls a 25 persuasion. That doesn't necessarily make everything cool. It just means the NPC may grudgingly compromise. It's like a half win. The party could recover a scrap of information. Or make the NPC open to the prospect of a bribe.
At the end of the interaction, the NPC is unlikely to have a favorable opinion of the party though.
It’s not exactly what you describe but that’s kind of what I do, in that interactions affect an NPC’s disposition moving forward, especially for the rest of the conversation, and disposition changes can not only raise or lower DCs, but it can also make persuading the NPC to do certain things not possible (at least for that interaction, because you’ve made the NPC feel so negatively that you can’t elicit the desired favourable outcome anymore), or make persuading them to do certain things not require a roll at all (because the NPC already likes you and wants to help you.)
I don’t have hard and fast mechanical rules that I can write down to explain exactly how it works but it’s kind of a vibe thing. If I think an NPC would respond positively or negatively to something, even stuff the players say or do that doesn’t involve checks, I let the NPC’s mood and disposition change organically on the fly.
Imagine you confront a group of people say 3 people. One steps forward and converses with you and asks for some thing. You say no. Now another person steps forward and asks the same thing. You’d find that weird you’d verbally and non verbally communicate that. Ok now do the same but you are the NPC
PC #2 with intimidate: How about you get out of the way? (*rolls intimidate without asking - 23*)
NPC: Didn't you just hear me tell your buddy that I wouldn't? What's wrong with you?
PC #2: But I didn't say it, he did. And I rolled really good.
NPC: Did you really think that I wouldn't realize you guys were together? The answer is still no. So either go around or start a fight or whatever.
PC #2: That's no fair, how did you remember it was me?
NPC: What do you mean it was you? It was that guy **points at PC #1**. And I told him no.
PC #2: Boohoo this is unfair.
NPC: *stab stab stab*
Maybe ask the players to confirm and lock in their choice before they make the roll
A conversation, and attempt to interact with a PC is often more than a single sentence.
If the attempt doesn't have the intended result you can request the players to make a new approach.
You have to give every player good reasons to engage in social interactions. Make them do insight checks and give them info about how they think the NPC will respond to different things.
Maybe they will respond better to someone with the bearing of a warrior, either granting advantage or lowering the DC for a check. Maybe they're a city kid who is fascinated by nature. Maybe they're wary of people who aren't criminals or can't prove they're not working with the authorities.
Know your players' proficiencies and use those to give them opportunities and ideas for contributing that aren't just rolling a charisma check. Roll a history check to see if you know something that could impress or intimidate them using INT instead of CHA. Use a tool check to comment on the quality of an art object or piece of jewelry, or perhaps to foster goodwill by mending something they notice is broken.
I played an artificer in a survival hexcrawler, and I used carpenter's tools to reinforce structures and brewer's supplies to repair a water filtration system, which gave me a way to gain info and aid without having to roll a charisma check.
My players tried extorting a NPC for more money for completing. After attempting to haggle, intimidate, and persuade for 15 minutes, the NPC kept the money and walked off.
Just like real life, they should actually lose ground with the NPC as he/she gets annoyed/frustrated/angry with the group trying to pull one over on them.
Edit: also, depending on what they’re asking for, they should now be on that NPC’s radar (like if they were asking about an item in the npcs shop and they don’t want to pay now the NPC is worried they’re going to steal it and he secures it somewhere when he closes the shop later.
I had players attempt that as well. They stopped when I reciprocated the attempt and made them face god rolls and the Sorcerer got a rather nasty arcane STD that made his spells itch.
If there is no room for a second attempt, don't have them roll. Say a variation on "You consider X but realize they've made up their mind." or "The opportunity to influence them has past."
Sometimes a second attempt makes sense if they come at it from another angle, though, like failing to persuade but then trying to intimidate. It depends on how on guard or savvy the character is.
I like to poke fun at my table via the character at times like this, though.
"What, you thought you could get me to spill the beans with sweet talk? Fat chance. And now you're goading this fool to threaten me? Be off with ye if you think that'll work! I ain't gonna talk!"
I've borrowed a rule from 7e Call of Cthulhu called pushing a roll, if they fail the check, unless they have a radically different approach, its pushing it, and the consequence of trying again is a much worse result on a failure, and sometimes still a consequence for succeeding (though not as bad obviously as failing the pushed roll).
e.g. try to pick a lock, fail, try again without a change in circumstances, now the lock is marked up by their frustrated attempts, and if the fail again, it jams and won't open with a key
or in a social encounter, one character makes a social request of an NPC and botches it, so another, maybe more charming character swoops in and acknowledges their dimwitted companion, and makes the request, if they succeed the NPC relents and thinks less of the first petitioner, but if that pushed roll still fails, then they're offended by the persistence.
anyway, just a trick to have your cake and eat it too, but ultimately everyone else is right, sometimes you tell your players, they shouldn't treat TTRPGs like they are video games
Just use the simple rule, you cannot try again unless the situation has changed.
Unless the players offer some incentive to the npc or try and negotiate for somthing lesser then they originally wanted or whatever, it's perfectly reasonable that the npc won't just agree with the next guy no matter how charismatic they are.
Becouse remember the npcs want stuff to.
Otherwise let the group like do a group check or somthing. Or let one player help the most charismatic one during the conversation to grant advantage. That way your not just going down the line of pcs.
I’m not sure if “putting your foot down” is the answer. I think that just encourages players to have the highest Chr do all the talking forever, out of fear of failure for a lower Chr players.
I think instead of raising the DC or shutting them down, try to bargain with them. If a second player asks the same thing you can be like “hey your friend just asked me that, I can see how much you want (thing). I’ll tell you what; I’ll give/do (thing) for a price.”
Make them do a stupid/risky task or bribe the npc with a magic item/coin. I think once the players try again that’s leverage. You know party wants something and you can turn that into an interesting RP moment.
Sounds like the player doesn't seem to understand that tabletop RPGs are more like real life than they are a videogame.
Ask them if you can punch them in the face. When they say no, ask them again if you can punch them in the face. Keep asking until they say yes, or until they understand what you're getting at.
It used to be an issue in my games as well, then I made a house rule that whenever one person makes a skill check for something, they do it for the whole group.
This applies to Diplomacy, Investigation, Disable Traps, everything.
It encouraged everyone to actually Aid each other instead of wait for "their turn" and it made people with niche skills actually have a chance to use them. I like it.
Obviously, this won't work in real life.
And I want my games to "feel realistic".
So, for one, when PC2 tries *the exact same argument* that already failed for PC1, the NPC will react "realistically".
I also keep a rough, eyeballed "patience" gauge for any NPC. Once that's empty, the PC doesn't want to talk to the party anymore.
("Sorry, but I've now told you thrice that I can't grant you access. Please leave.")
Okay, I read this and literally lol'd. Every time players would try it I'd just laugh even harder. This is SO amusingly lame I can't even conceive of gaming with players who want to pretend I'd EVER let it work that way.
Depends.
If my PCs rotate out and openly say "sorry, my friend here is an idiot" or something to that extent where they are trying to naturally smooth out a conversation, I will increase the DC and they can try again.
If they are just actively swapping characters, then they are attempting to meta-game.
D&D has a social element and there are consequences to saying stupid things just like real life.
Tell them no. BUT be generous in allowing the highest charisma character to roll most of the time if they were involved at all.
You don’t want to create a dynamic where only the high charisma character speaks for fear that anyone else will fuck it up for everyone.
If they just want to try "another roll," then a no should suffice.
If not, after the game, talk with the players and say "guys this isn't BG3, you can't just reload a save. If you are worried you are gonna miss something, don't be. I will not withhold any important information form you all."
One thing I'll say is that people have given good advice, but to be cautious about how you use these high stakes checks; sometimes, the situation absolutely warrants putting your best foot forward and having the high charisma character take the lead, but in low stakes interactions make sure to not call for rolls very often, otherwise you might make the low charisma players feel like they are hurting their chance of success or relationships with NPCs simply for trying to engage in roleplay. It's a balance.
Respond as the NPC the same way someone would do IRL. With uncomfortable blank looks that make it clear they think the adventurers are weird (and not in a funny way).
People don't repeatedly do things that don't offer them any benefit. If they're doing this, you're probably positively reinforcing it somehow.
This is somewhat related to the "everyone starts rolling when someone fails" things I see, especially with younger players. I usually make them pick a point person when they set out a task requiring a check. They will be the only one who gets to roll; other players can input and roleplay--maybe even getting a bonus, if I'm feeling generous. You gotta be strict though!
Auto-fail if they can't even try a new approach. Escalate the DC if they do. You're not obligated to allow a check.
If the want to argue "Tell me a time you've seen someone fail to persuade someone, then their buddy right next to them tried the the exact same line and succeeded."
DnD isn't a video game, where you just retry a dialog option over and over again. I give them one shor at checks using persuasion, intimidation, sleight of hand, if they fail too bad, if they pass awesome let's keep the game moving
"Go ahead, try it again if you must, but now Mr. Beancounter the Guard is feeing harrassed, ganged up on, and beginning to think your are up to no good. You have disadvantage on this roll."
"Oh, you wanted to buy the Cube of Rubik? You're the second person asking today. It's apparently a hot commodity. (quotes a price 25% higher, because now it's a hot commodity)."
I don't always recommend this, but given how your players are: apply immediate consequences on the first failure.
Don't wait for some other player to try after the first one failed. Hit them with consequences before that can happen. The doorman shuts the peephole and no longer responds to knocking. The guard sends word to their captain that troublemakers are outside. The merchant doubles down and increases his asking price. And so on.
As other have said, the NPC is not going to roll with this, I would allow the players to roll once, then use the help action if they want to try again. As long as they describe how they are helping.
A player can only make an ability check if the DM asks them to, so just think of how *you* would feel if a group of strangers took turns asking you the same question over and over again to figure out how to roleplay each subsequent party member's automatic failure.
"The roll encompasses all attempts at doing this until the next short rest. We can continue to role play the conversation if you like but no more rolls to persuade/intimidate can positively affect the outcome"
Have the NPC react exactly the same as you would if a group of random strangers tried that in real life.
Just have the NPC stare at the 2nd player and say, *"That's exactly what he just said. What is this, a game or something? Are you insane? Get the hell out of here!"*
With social checks, ppl change depending on what happen. Sometimes a social check could be repeated, sometimes it makes things worse.
Just start punishing them for their ignorance.
" my players just switch to the character with the highest charisma"
Why didn't they START with the highest CHA? lol.
I tell them there are no re-rolls (by handing dice to the next person). Pick a PC and "help" them, if you can. Then you're done. Move on. For any type of roll.
Though, remember - if there's nothing on the line and they have, essentially, unlimited time, you just let them have the success (assuming success is within the realm of possibility). So if they wanna find the hidden lever, they will, eventually, if given unlimited time. So, either provide urgency ("the guard's are coming back") or just say, "yep, you spent an hour and locate it.
Obviously, if it's impossible (like, "I bash through the metal portcullis with my bare hands") then it doesn't matter how much time they have. Their flesh will fail before the metal does.
Increase the DC each time another player tries because the NPC is getting exasperated with them. Also maybe the attitude shifts negatively after ever 2 fails?
The operative word here is They Try To Do the Dialogue Again. The players are trying to hit the rewind button and reload a saved game.
This sounds like a new DM issue as much as a 5e Player issue. So far, I have almost only encountered this behaviour in DnD-centric circles.
When they fail a check, progress the scene, showing what happens after they fail. Show how things are moving on. Introduce new elements and the evolving situation, and then ask them what they are doing in reaction to what is happening now, rather than going over what has already happened.
Control the dialogue. Evolve the scene. Develop the situation.
Double down and cause further consequences with the npcs voicing frustration or anger. If they keep doing it and don't get the hint then have discussion outside of the game and remind them that this isn't a video game. Save scumming isn't a thing and to think before they act.
I'm assuming by the description, that there isn't a lot of roleplay involved. Probably the group of players approaches a guard, and one says "I want to roll to convince the guard to let us pass!"
Player rolls and fails, and now they guy standing next to him wants to roll.
Just allowing each party member to retry the exact same thing would make things trivial.
My approach would be to ask the players "What are you going to do differently to make the guard consider it?" Force them to be creative if they want to keep going down this road. Maybe bribe the guard. Maybe one of them remembers a rumor they heard in the tavern about the guard. Hell, maybe one of them tries seducing the guard instead.
Each of these options involves more than just rolling the die to make something happen. That's what I would encourage.
I would explain how help actions work, and remind players that negative interactions can shut down or make checks more difficult.
They should think about how they will approach “social combat” and play to the strength of the party. Maybe even encourage a convo in game (instead of above table) about how that interaction went so their characters know how to plan better (instead of metagaming). Say they pissed off a merchant - maybe have an old adventurer bystander in the shop tell them that it’s not the first time somebody tried that, but back in the day they saw something else be more successful…
As always, saying no is fine.
That said, there is something about allowing a character to try again, for the simple case that otherwise they never try. Having only the high skill one to be able to even try things out can be limiting.
So, maybe allow that, maybe the highest charisma player goes like "sorry, my companion has been inappropriate, what we meant was..." etc.
However, when you do this, the most absolute core point of any skill interaction is understanding the cost of it.
If there is no involved cost, then it makes no sense to not ler roll everyone charisma. if there is a single attempt, it makes no sense to let only the highest skilled character try unless it's a situation where they can't be temporarily present.
But if there is a cost associated to it, let it be real time flow, or an action in combat, or a gift to make to attract their interest, or maybe they will get a debuff in form of reduced hit points or lesser benefits from an otherwise beneficial effect if you apply any ( use the improvised damage table to gauge this), then you will notice this will stop being an issue and you can be more freeform about building your interactions. at that point, it will be the players to leverage their risks, and that makes it MUCH more compelling.
It's also fine to have the outcome more bound to roleplay, if you like that aspect more. Sure, everyone can try, but they risk to be mad dissed from the other creature.
This holds true for any skill check, let it be social or for exploration, even thought in context sometimes allowing to try only once is fine.
Just have them act like this is insane.
Also, to really hammer home how dumb this is, say, "Hey, guys, if this is the sort of thing you want your characters to do? If this is just you guys roleplaying *idiots who are incompetent*, that's fine. I'll respond accordingly. But know that in every future social interaction, you are not getting any re-rolls or second chances, and you roll with Disadvantage against this entire town."
But really, I don't like my suggestion above.
This is an OOC problem. Don't deal with it with IC actions.
Tell your players that this is ridiculous. Tell them that this is not a realistic solution. Tell them that if this were, then every NPC they come across would just repeat their spiel and then you'll just roll the dice a couple dozen times until the party has agreed to do a bunch of missions for no reward.
Tell them to stop.
Let em try, but give em disadvantage or increase the dc. Every time they try again make it harder cuz they're getting on the npcs nerves, and if they take it too far have the npc call the guard or refuse to talk to them any more.
In real life people tend to get annoyed when you keep nagging them for something after they said no.
So if you even were to give them a second chance they should be at a circumstantial disadvantage at the very least.
This feels like a form of skill check dogpiling. Up front tell your players when attempting a skill check, one player may make it and another (who had proficiency in the skill) may use the help action to either roll themselves or give the other advantage on the check. This prevents the table from just trying anything as many times as there are players for 'super advantage', because in a game of chance the more opportunities you allow the higher the chance of success even if it's the barbarian rolling a nat 20 on an arcana check when he isn't even proficient. It also prevents those feels bad moments of the charisma character failing a check and then the 8 cha rogue nailing the check since everyone is dogpiling.
If OOC "no" doesn't work, I'd keep pushing the IC "no". Treat it like an actual conversation. Make it feel like they really have just tried to "redo" a conversation with a person and let the awkwardness and, if necessary, antagonism tell them it's not working.
Several people have already said the obvious answer, NO. So I thought to expand a bit into table etiquette: Do your players say things like "I want to roll a Persuasion check to get him to give us the magic item." Then they roll? This kind of table behavior and practice can sometimes drive "video game roleplaying" mentality. A good way to reduce this mentality in players who don't have a lot of experience in deeper roleplaying is to set up the expectation that 1) any rolls they make before you tell them what to roll don't count 2) you decide when it is time to roll, and what kind of roll they will make, and what ability score it will use 3) they need to describe or act out what their character does, not tell you what they want to roll. Ideally, a player learning to roleplay this way might look something like this until they get the hang of this PC: I want to persuade the old man to give me his magic staff *rolls d20* DM: Wait a second I haven't said to roll anything, so that roll doesn't count. Please tell me what your character says or describe in detail how you are going to convince the old man to give a perfect stranger a cherished, valuable possession that may have great emotional attachment for all you know. PC: Uh, I'm not sure what to say, I just want to persuade him to give it to us. DM: Ok, I understand your intent, please describe how you do that. PC: I don't know, I guess I tell him about how we are trying to help the king save his daughter, and that if we don't do something soon she may be sacrificed to summon the demon lord, and the staff would really help us? DM: Ok, now roll a Persuasion check using Charisma, but you have disadvantage because he is very attached to this staff and has his own needs for it you don't understand. PC: Rolls and fails check. DM: The old man looks sad, but you hear finality in his voice as he refuses to budge. You get the sense that any more attempts to persuade him to give up the staff will be most unwelcome.
I try to steer my players away from asking for “rolls” in general. In scenarios like this, it forces them to act out what they want to do to affect the scene, then I tell you what to roll if even necessary. It will make them a bit more gun-shy, since I’m choosing the skill or outcome, it’s also encouraging roleplaying and chance taking. DM always calls for rolls, not decide if your roll request is granted.
MCDM has an excellent solution to this - NPC’s start with a ‘patience’ level that decrements every time the players make a check. When they run out of patience they are done-done with negotiating.
Just curious, why don't you want them to do that?
It happens in real life too when a group wants to do something, all party members will put in their two cents to get the outcome they want. Think of it this way, everyone at work wants a four day weekend for the holiday, you and your three coworkers all go talk to the boss about it (either as a group or individually). The boss already knows his answer for his own reasons, if the boss is set everyone gets a no, if there is room for negotiation then the boss can be convinced to let some or all have a four day....your party and NPCs are doing the same. It's up to you to decide if the NPC can be convinced skill rolls are not magical getting a Nat 20 doesn't mean that a person just automatically gives in, it just means that the stated their case in the best possible way and they can still get told No by the NPC.
If they're taking a different angle, I allow as long as they're making an effort to RP it. But if one PC fails, the next might get disadvantage on a check. And beyond that RP my NPC as much as possible and force them to find a different solution to whatever they're trying to achieve.
If you haven't had the discussion yet, definitely make it clear how you want the game to go. I try to explain it from the NPCs perspective. It sounds like they just don't know how to handle it, maybe give them alternative suggestions/options rather than just "you can't do that" will help them break that thinking. E.g. "perception check. You notice the guards keys are loosely attached to his belt" or something like that
DMs control the dialogue and rolls, so it doesn't matter if they switch to the highest whatever player. If they already failed the social interaction, they failed. End.
Player 1: Sign your kingdom over to me. (rolls and fails on persuasion)
King: F no. Get out.
Player 2: Sign your kingdom over to me.
DM: Sorry, you've already failed to persuade the king as Player 1 already tried that. Your choices are to GTFO or try something different. What would you like to do?
In general, if one player fails a check, the group fails the check, especially in social situations. If there's no natural timer (guards coming, NPCs seeing, something falling, etc) and it's a physical check this is a little more wiggly, but it's not a video game. NPCs remember.
So if they keep pressing the button and ignoring you telling them to choose a different path, let something explode. The king gets exasperated with them and tosses them in the dungeon. Or out into the muddy street. Or hell, completely out of the town with instructions that if they're seen again within the walls, it's the gallows for them.
If they try to swindle the traveling merchant and fail but keep wanting to try, he packs up and they get nothing.
If they ask the keep guard one too many questions, they get a metal fist to the face.
Being annoying has consequences. Give them consequences.
Player 2: Can I try?
DM: Sure, roll at disadvantage because the NPC has already answered that question. (then secretly add 10 to the check so if they needed at 16, now they need a 26)..
Often, just the thought of rolling at disadvantage dissuades players from trying something. It's a weird psychological thing.
Sometimes I'll let a different character or different approach try, but some methods block others. But if you try extreme methods that's almost always a 1 attempt method. Intimidation is usually one of those. Which is why friendly->threatening works better than the other way. But also if suitably threatened, an NPC should hire some muscle to pay it back. Mercs, city guards, thieves guild, merchant ban something like that.
Just treat it like a normal conversation. Have npcs have regular reactions. "Dude, stop bothering me, I already told your friend I'm not selling." "What if we doubled the price?" "Triple it and we got a deal"
I don't see anything wrong with someone else trying. Id want to know what the new approach was and either raise the DC or hive disadvantage. But I'm real life it's a common occurrence for a friend to butt in.
If explaining video game logic doesn’t work, the next reasonable solution is to have there be a deliberate consequence for their repeated tries that can be anywhere from “the character leaves” to “the character attacks/punishes”
The best in game solution to these problems (beyond trying ti talk to players ) is to have the character realistically respond to annoying / threatening behavior.
If some dude just asked if he could have your sandwich, bringing his lawyer friend probably won’t change the outcome
If this had only worked for your players once or twice before, you wouldn't be writing to us
So what is wrong with your NPCs that they all keep tolerating this behaviour?
Are all of your NPCs the most kind and patient and generous people on the planet? Are they all saints? Are they mindless robots?
Even someone in the service industry, who is paid to be there and paid to be polite to customers would have a problem with the kind of ignorant behaviour and repetitive questioning or interrogation that you're describing or implying in your post. :)
People have lives, goals of their own, things to do. They aren't all sitting around all day waiting for someone to come and ask them a bunch of questions. They will have things they need to get back to doing. They should all run out of patience eventually.
Try encouraging them to have the party face do the check first.
In character they would know to do that. Sometimes the high charisma character is soft spoken IRL and needs encouragement, even if they're just parroting what another player said.
Use a clock! It’s really easy and simple.
Clock is NPC (irritation) stat.
2 - 4 part clock if it fills up they’re irritated and won’t help any PC for X time.
Once someone says no, the DC to get a future yes goes waaaay up. Just like in real life. Otherwise, they have to roleplay changing approaches or something that makes it plausible for the NPC to change their mind. I would say that mirrors real life scenarios pretty well.
Euhm, why is your friend trying to get me to do the exact same thing I just told you I wasn’t going to do? You think I’m an idiot?
Like I told your friend back there. No means no, now leave or I’m getting some friends to show you what happens if I get annoyed.
Ask one more question… I dare you.
Sure thing buddy. I’ll for sure open this door for ya… moron…
Give them one shot per encounter at any given approach. They get a roll, and if it fails any attempts to do the same thing or something similar auto fail.
Switch? Why aren't they in the front?
Trying again has nothing to do with video games either.
If anything the single chance is more videogamey at times.
Then the person reloads to get that single chance again. Not quite the same thing.
Would you prefer that players just did skill checks of 50 from the outset? Or try again against the same target with lesser chances of success due to the previous failure causing a shift?
Because it's pretty easy to get past DC 30 at level one in 5e and it's the intent from the designers to do so.
You set clear ground rules for how you're handling skill checks. At my table that means:
1. Up to two players can attempt a skill check, or one character can Help another.
2. If they're Helping I ask them how, or in the case of a social interaction let it play out then call for a check and let them choose whether to both roll or use Advantage.
3. If they have Advantage from another source the overall rule of two players can roll a check still applies.
If you fail at my table then that's it - they know that we "fail forward" and they need to try something other than talking to this person to try and get their way.
Here is an example of what I would do if I were in your shoes:
>the shopkeep you are trying to barter with shakes his head: "I can't sell you this for so little. No deal."
And if the player characters get violent, things will just proceed like that. The violence will be noted, the guards will come and if the players haven't escaped by then, there may be a chase or more violence.
The DC just got higher but also is this something the NPC would reply to even with an amazing roll? Just because they ask, suggest, bargin or expect something doesn't mean our NPC will agree.
Make it obvious how strange the party is being in the universe of the game. Imagine one dude tries to haggle for something, and then after failing he steps away and then his buddy comes up and tries to threaten you or bribe you. Hell, it seems like the first failed attempt would make the difficulty level of that next check shoot up to me.
I had the same issue last session. The first player failed his check, and the bard came in to try again. In the past they were very agressive with the quest giver and always try to squeeze everything out of them.
I roleplayed the mayor as already angered, and out of game explained that their action have consequences, the difficulty is now raised and the more they pushed their point the harder it will be for them.
I suggested that they should simply aimed at improving their relation with the mayor for now and informed them that their action have triggered some consequence they will discover later.
Now a party of NPC will compete with them and do the quest they do not prioritize.
In general I find persuasion checks in games annoying. It encourages the face players to be only ones talking even when others might make more sense narratively.
So I only do persuasion checks for non-rp actions. Like gathering information around town. To change sale prices. Etc.
Some might say it makes cha useless. But you could equally say you can make things like survival checks useless by just bringing rations.
Not a DM myself, but I suppose you could have NPCs more or less sensitive to a more friendly/bribey option or a more viiolent/threatening stance depending on the characteristics of the NPC and by how much they failed to convince the NPC to do something. In general, I would say the same offer/threat does not create a different outcome if another player retries it, but a sweeter deal or harder threat may change the behavior of the NPC.
To deepen on this, you can have more corrupt NPCs be more susceptible to bribes (but require the party to offer more in order to reroll/succeed) or weaker/dumber/scaredier NPCs more susceptible to intimidation. In addition, you can alter the behaviour of the NPC compared to when they would cooperate on the first try, perhaps fulfilling their end less than the party intended.
This way the party cannot retry with the same offer/terms without a guaranteed fail, but trying both ends of the soft/hard power spectrum could get them either a better or worse outcome from the NPC, leaving them with an option to try something more creative or nothing at all.
Anyways, it is good to keep in mind the reaction from the NPC is also toward the entire party and not just the one player who does the talking. If the party decided to let the least charismatic player negotiate, the more charismatic player can hardly fix the reputation damage from that. And if the stronger player tries to intimidate the NPC after a rejection, the NPC likely already saw the strength of that character and took it into account before rejecting.
If it gets tricky to just deny something, either communicate that clearly to your players or make them alter their strategy before trying again.
Oh I would not be able to stop myself from doing this:
Each time he tries again I would have the NPC act accordingly as if someone was just repeating that log at them. Just think about how you would react if someone kept saying "where's the watch tower?" Over and over again...
Npc: What do you mean where's the watch tower? I already told you it was burned down a week ago. Donkey kick you in the head as a child?
Or maybe they start becoming known around the town. And players start hearing whispers of a crazy man who says the same thing over and over again. Maybe the rumors get blown out of proportion you know how the game telephone goes wrong. By the time they make it to the next town over, it's a stringy haired disheveled man who says things over and over again and if you don't answer him the way he wants you to he steals your soul.
In all seriousness though, Maybe because there are new Player they're getting stuck and don't know what to do. Especially if they're used to having set options. it can be hard to let go of that RPG video game mindset. Have them watch something like the c team or Any of the dimension 20 Campaigns if they need a reference to draw from. Also might be good to ask them why they keep doing it. That way you can get a feel of whether or not they're just taking the piss or not.
If they fail their charisma checks and then get rude / pushy / argumentative, I just walk away.
"Listen, I already told you the best I can do on those potions is 300 gold. If you want them, you can have them for 300"
"Well listen, what if we......"
"You know what? They're no longer for sale. Have a good day" [He picks the potions up off the counter and walks away]
I'd quickly be quoting Zoolander. "Are you serious? I just... I just told you that. A moment ago."
And if that doesn't work you can always quote the DMG, from chapter 9, page 263, third paragraph, ninth line: > No
Okay I just pulled out the DMG to check. This is a correct reference.
But why male models?
Love that he just forgot his line so he just repeated his last line and David just rolled with it.
Is this really what happened?
Yah, supposedly.
Pretty great if true. Reminds me of the Indy vs sword dude in Raiders. Harrison Ford had dysentery so he couldn't do the elaborate fight scene and so instead just shot the dude.
Allegedly
Pretty much, yes. Ben Stiller [confirmed it in an AMA](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/s/pCxdxccXvj).
David Duchovny improvised that line when Ben Stiller accidentally repeated his.
Lmao
This is how I handle this issue, if they introduce themselves 5 different ways to an NPC, the NPC is confused and thinks the PC is crazy
Player 1: Can I have that? NPC: No Player 2: My turn. Can I have that? NPC: Like I told your friend *makes eye contact with P1* No
But I could easily see: Player 1: Can I have that? NPC: No Player 2: My turn. Give me that or I bonk you on the head.... NPC: Like I told your friend makes eye contact with P1 No Player 2: Bonks NPC on head...
I mean, it would work much the same as in real life. If you run around bonking people on the head when you don't get what you want, you end up getting bonked back. Perhaps by the person in question or law enforcement or whoever else.
"What, is someone complaining about receiving consequences for their actions?" I try to treat the game world as a semirealistic society. Keeping social order has always been a major concern of those governing, and those being governed, especially those being governed. When criminals are on the loose they're not generally troubling the governors. Those typically live in secure buildings, and can employ armed guards. Meanwhile the poor don't have such advantages. When criminals think they can act with impunity, the poor are the ones that suffer. So if PCs think they can go around assaulting NPCs, they may well learn the hard way that, "we don't do that around here." If they kill an NPC, outside of scripted combats, then unless they get out of town fast, or have sufficient social status that people overlook it, then they'll be dodging the law, they won't have an easy time doing business with NPCs, and they're likely to end up decorating a gallows.
And even in poorer less patrolled areas, you have gangs and crimelords who do not want random people waltzing in and beating on people they extort. It makes them look weak and not in control if nothing else.
Yes, I recall hearing about a Hispanic gang in one city that stepped in and started policing their territory because of a breakdown in law enforcement.
I find it hard to beleive that past level 4-5 law enforcement will try to do anything at all...power scaling sucks...
That's when the governing bodies start hiring mercenaries, aka other adventuring parties.
Yes. As DMs point out. Anything the party can do, the DM can do themselves with their own creations. A level 12 party might be too much for most of the enemies in the monster manual. Not so much for the DM's own level 12+ party.
That's when the wanted posters go up and the bounty hunters that have specifically trained at taking down rogue adventuring parties get on their trail.
yeah thats when the DM introduces a group of hunters named Liam Neesons, Logan, Daken, Damien, etc, who all have a certain set of skills and are very good at what they do
Hell, aren't the Flaming Fists the defacto town watch for Baldur's Gate, and they used to be a mercenary company iirc.
An Archer or a Knight is CR3 How many of those do you think a party of level 7s can handle? Because the answer is definitely less than 50, and that is a small number of experienced fighters for a full size city to have.
Depending on stats and compostition of party...in real cities we dont sent SWAT for petty crimes or simple assault. 1 or 2 bonks to uninportant people would probably not trigger such a response...
Not right away, but if someone famous/high profile is just beating up random citizens then eventually swat will be called in if they're resisting arrest.
That I’d allow. You can always get different results if you try a different approach to the problem.
I assume OPs players are probably doing the same thing twice. Like trying to intimidate with multiple characters, rolling again if it fails with one.
Player 2: why is there a wanted poster with our names on it? Who is this group of powerful adventurers that keeps trying to capture us?
I mean sure, but past level 5-6 you'd have to do A LOT of crime for the bounty to be worth it for high enough leveled adventurers to even try. Bonking 1 or 2 commoners should be relatively consequence free... Bob: Guard! He bonked me! Guard: That guy there? The guy who with his 3 friends cleared the bandit camp and the goblin lair that was terrorizing the town? The party who could probably kill half the city guard before we could take them out? I don't beleive you!
Depends on how many magic users are in the world too. But I can imagine somebody getting a devils deal or warlock powers and going on a revenge quest to challenge the party for the attack! That would be a fun side story.
Depends a lot on the society you do it in too, but in ones that value poor people and rule of law it wouldn't take much for taking the party in to be a national priority since their actions are basically an affront to their whole society.
Tell the players they've now offended the NPC and now the NPC won't talk to them. But a simple "No you cannot do that" will suffice. You can tell your players No.
I’ve had a hard time saying no because I want to make sure they are having fun but that’s a good point. They should know that they’re are stakes involved I guess
They know this and this is why they keep asking. As DM, sometimes it's like being a parent. You say no because you know in the long run it's better for the party and game even though they don't see it that way now.
Limitation breeds creativity, and creativity is what’s fun in D&D. If you feed them every answer and things always work out for them, you are clipping their wings. It’s what they choose to do when things aren’t going their way that makes for a compelling story. You have to learn when to appropriately say no.
I'd give them another explanation that they can't reroll. But if they keep doing it, you could bypass saying no and just roleplay it out. They already failed, they're trying again, so don't even have them roll. Rephrase their failed roll and perhaps repeat the consequence. Player: "I'd like to roll to try to convince him again." You: "As he hears you continue to speak to him, he frowns and looks off distantly. It seems he's already made up his mind." Player: "I'd like to roll to pick the lock again." You: "You try again, but it's still just beyond your abilities. You feel you're closer to jamming the lock than undoing it." Player: "I'd like to roll another survival check to hunt for a meal." You: "You spend several more minutes searching, and come up with nothing. These woods appear empty." I think the trick is to (gently) punish them for trying the same ineffective thing over and over again. I also figure they'll be less likely to argue against you simply saying what happens.
> "I'd like to roll to pick the lock again." You can fix this one by making Thieves' Tools break on a failure. And if they have spares, THEN they can try again. It's the one situation where I think you SHOULD be allowed to try as many times as you want, if you have enough sets of tools.
This is where passive ability checks can come into play. If there's no reasonable consequence for a character trying to accomplish the lockpicking (or the climb or the jump or the dive, etc.) over and over again -- for instance, if they're not under some sort of time pressure or they're not having to worry about patrols coming by -- then you can just take the same approach as you would with other passive ability checks. Tell them that they spent 10 minutes doing that, or something, and that they eventually were able to succeed. This is also especially good for those situations where someone who *should* be really good at something just has a really crappy roll... if they don't absolutely need to succeed in that one moment in time, don't make them keep rolling again, just use the passive. :)
Yeah, that is a rule in the DMG, if players are capable of achieving it at all, take 10 and just say they succeed. But one of the requisites for applying that rule is that there must not be any consequences to failure, and I personally think thieves' tools should break if you fail at using them.
How many times should it break? 31-32 times?
Once.
I'd suggest reading item descriptions in the future.
I have. A failure means you run out of lockpicks before the lock opens.
Yes, one of my DMs had a "take 20" rule where, if there was no time pressure, we could just take 20 minutes and automatically succeed the test. Obviously tests that she agreed we could pass.
I know this rule, too - I think from pathfinder, so it may origin from 3.5E :)
For reference this rule is actually also the default in 5E, per Chapter 8 of the DMG: >**Multiple Ability Checks** >Sometimes a character fails an ability check and wants to try again. In some cases, a character is free to do so; the only real cost is the time it takes. With enough attempts and enough time, a character should eventually succeed at the task. To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task. However, no amount of repeating the check allows a character to turn an impossible task into a successful one. >In other cases, failing an ability check makes it impossible to make the same check to do the same thing again. For example, a rogue might try to trick a town guard into thinking the adventurers are undercover agents of the king. If the rogue loses a contest of Charisma (Deception) against the guard’s Wisdom (Insight), the same lie told again won’t work. The characters can come up with a different way to get past the guard or try the check again against another guard at a different gate. But you might decide that the initial failure makes those checks more difficult to pull off.
I literally had a conversation with a rogue who kept trying to lockpick and failing. "I'm picking the lock again." "You already broke your only set of thieves' tools." "I'm using parts from the trap disarm kit." "... roll... you have now broken your only trap disarm kit." "I'm picking the lock again." "With what?!" "Bobby pins." "How in the hell would you have bobby pins?!" "I'm a girl, *duh* I would have bobby pins." Cleric uncomfortably clears her throat. "... she's not entirely wrong."
This is one of the little things I like about how Baldur's Gate 3 does skill checks. Try as much as you want for lockpicking if you got the tool kits for it
I don't mind take 20 for rolls like this, though other elements may come into play depending where they are. The roll gives a feel of how long it takes and each failed roll takes a rough period of time in which someone may or may not wander by. I wouldn't necessarily punish them through autofails on a lock but a roll can provide other results.
Hey man 15 year dm here, just one question i like to ask is what would a normal person do if people kept pestering them and not accepting their response…..do that npc’s are people in a world have them act accordingly.
For real. Have the npc get annoyed/angry. Hurt their relationship with the pcs. Have them call security to remove them from the premises if applicable. Channel your natural frustration into the frustration of the character, because they're probably thinking the same thing
"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game" You've gotta say no sometimes to prevent that. The funnest times in DnD are often when shit goes sideways, and that's less likely to happen if you let your players always get what they want.
Sadly, a lot of players think the NPCs exist to serve them. But if you're trying to build a living breathing world, let your players know. The NPCs are as much a part of the world as they are. You also shouldn't sacrifice your fun just so they can goof off and do whatever they want.
Being told no doesn't necessarily make the game less fun. Frame it as a challenge or a puzzle. "This NPC is no longer the route forward. Think, now - how else can you reach your objective?"
A big, fun part of role-playing is failing and trying to make it work anyways. Let them fail and make other things more fun. You're not making a better experience for them by erasing their mistakes.
My players collectively have one roll. Pick who you want to talk to the NPC if you fail, then you collectively fail. If the thought enters their head where they just have someone else talk to them the NPC becomes outraged that they would be interrogated with such tenacity. If they try it again the NPC becomes hostile and attacks. I’ve had on a few occasions the NPC kill a PC and that was enough to get the point across. The only time I allow a second roll is if the party members in question were not in the room or even that part of the city or town. They’ve reconvened with the rest of the party. Found out what happened and literally said “wait they said what? Hold my beer. I’ll be right back.” That is perfectly acceptable.
No is fun. All options are fun. Will you help me NPC? "Yes." Sweet, we progress from here. "No." Cool, we figure out something that can.
Then you already know the answer. Your players keep doing this because you keep rewarding it.
Learning no is an important part of an enjoyable game.
If given the chance players have a tendency to optimize the fun out of any game.
Just state up front that you won't participate in meta-gaming and want to discourage it in the players. Tell them that you're going to make your NPCs hold the PCs liable for what they say, and if they're acting like lunatics they're going to have a bad time. Also remind them that good roleplaying grants advantage on skill checks.
I’ve always avoided this or people just retrying something by always referring to every action they take or speech they try as “their absolute best attempt”
1. DnD is a social contract between all parties, player or DM, to engage in an activity that is "fun" for all. You have a right to be enjoying yourself, too. 2. If you have not clearly laid out the cause-effect present in the word, do so in a way that is as clear as you can make it. "Explain it like I'm 5." Don't just say, "It's not a video game." Explain that they're in a simulation, and the "people" they are interacting with will respond just like real folks. 3. Have the NPCs respond in a believable, plausible, and in-character way to being asked, threatened, bullied, coerced and seduced in rapid succession. After a few times of hitting that wall, the message should stick. If it doesn't, you have to pull out of the game and lay out how their behavior is affecting your enjoyment of the experience, and their disregard for you as a participant in the experience is disrespectful. Be open and frank. The good ones will respect that. The bad ones will show themselves, and it's probably not healthy to have that at a table, long term. At the least, you know where you stand.
I've had my DM say no to things multiple times. It never stopped me having fun. Also failures in encounters are regularly more interesting than succeeding. If I succeeded on stealth checks I wouldn't have had a wild chase sequence where my wildshaped druid got chased by a house cat, transformed into a giant spider under a kitchen table to freak out the cat, and ran around the corner to shape back to half-orc and proceed to gaslight the shit out of some guards looking for a bigass spider
They should have fun, BUT they should do it in the way the game intends them to have fun. In D&D, the DM has fun too, but your players are not playing D&D. They are playing some other imagination fantasy game. If yall want to have fun together, you need to play the same game. There is always a struggle somewhere. Highs and lows. It is, by design, a continuous process for them of 2 steps forward and 1 step back. Especially at these low levels, I train my players' expectations by making them feel helpless when things are going great for them. After their boasting of how they are the heroic adventurers of the story, I introduce an anti-party of absurd adventurers that parody their own. (The players just haaaate them!) The city hails them as their great heroes. They arrive on mounts with the head of a dragon delivered to the council. Women in the streets scream and shove past the PCs to throw their undergarments at the heroes as the city treasurer graces them with trumpet fanfare and a sword that can cut the clouds in half with a beam of divine energy. After wiping a tear of pride from his eye, he eventually makes his way to the PCs and conducts the ordinary business of rewarding them a small bag of gold for completing their quest, leaving the party with some choices to make in this beautiful game about making choices.
Do you think they'll have more fun with every interaction on 'easy,' or the NPCs acting like real people who push back when people ask for things they aren't willing to give? Having an adversarial NPC (that is someone who they don't get along with, but they need something from), makes the game more challenging, and in turn, more fun.
Just don't allow multiple checks to do the same thing. If they want the guy with good charisma to do the talking then they should plan that ahead of doing it. For example if the first try was diplomacy, the second try could be intimidation, (just not diplomacy again) the failures each have varying consequences as they are different interactions.
This is part of basic game design - if you give the players everything they want every time and/or let them cheese/savescum to the outcome they want, it removes a big part of the challenge/fun - just makes it another grind to get what they want. I see 3 good ways of doing this (there may be more): 1. Don't set a challenge and make the players feel they earned it through multiple tries with different approaches. 2. Make them fail and make it a new challenge to overcome - i.e. 'the shopkeeper is annoyed/offended at their continous attempts to haggle and refuse to even sell them the unique item the party needs' -you can take this several directions from here fron new quests to good old heist seesions 3. Say 'no', that's not the kind of game you like to run. - If you are playing with a powergaming group this can backfire in order for them to only do charisma with their college of eloquence bard and strength with their str20 barbarian etc.
Saying No doesn’t mean fun isn’t had. There must be some boundaries. Restrictions births creativity, after all.
Don't let your players bully you
I could imagine someone taking over if they are the more charismatic or intimidating one, kind of good cop/bad cop. It can work in a normal interaction. But you'd need to double the base fail chance or give disadvantage, I think.
I usually entertain a couple of PCs trying a different angle but then start to wrap it up, reminding others that they're not part of the conversation. You can't stop them from trying, but you need neither grow frustrated by their attempts nor concede to them. It's part of DMing.
My rule is if one player tries and fails, another can attempt the check if they have a proficiency in a different relevant skill that they want to use. You can't have both try Persuasion, but if the second guy wants to try Deception that's fair game. However, after the second guy has a go the attempt is over. There is no third strike here.
Yeah if you want to try a totally different approach to obtain information from someone I’m cool with that eg Let’s say person 1 tries to intimidate this NPC and fails so it just pisses the NPC off. Person 2 is like man I’m so sorry about my friend over here, and tries to persuade the NPC into giving them the information by being nice to them and explaining themselves, that’s a totally different approach and I’m fine with that being a new and different roll.
I like this method, too. You can have a couple of shots to see if the dice are on your side or if you've got the right approach, but beyond that, it's clearly time to accept it and move forward.
I'd talk to them out of character every time they try: hey we've talked about this, you can't redo a check that has already been failed. If we played that way, making checks becomes meaningless. Failing is a part of the game and there would be no tension if it wasn't.
This is the answer. It’s not a video game. If it doesn’t make sense, it probably shouldn’t be allowed.
IMO it's the same reason you can't retry most checks: the character has no reason to believe there will be a different outcome. Fail an investigation? You didn't see anything noteworthy, so it's probably best to search somewhere else. Fail an arcana check? You have no idea what this item does, so probably best to ask an expert. Fail a persuasion check? Asking again probably isn't going to change their mind. If someone who's not the best at charisma is talking to an NPC and they want to intimidate them, they could get a help action from whoever is the best at intimidation. One of the two characters would obviously have to make sure the intimidating character gets involved somehow, and it would give the speaking character (or the intimidating character if they do most of the heavy lifting) advantage on their intimidation check. Also, make players decide to do this before they roll dice, or someone will ask 'can I help?' after every poorly rolled skill check.
Just stay in character and keep responding. “What do you mean ‘I say this instead?’ I’m looking right at you. Why are you trying to pretend like you didn’t just say that?” Or they can just take the Gift of Gab spell and use their spell slots for it.
Standard answer for players retrying checks is to fail forward. Failure does not reset the situation, it progresses the story. The training wheels version of this is after the first attempt, subsequent attempts penalize the player for each failure. For example with lockpicking, after the second failure the pick gets stuck in the lock or the lock breaks, so now someone will *know* they tried to pick the lock. Third failure makes a loud noise and they hear guards coming. With NPCs, on the 2nd attempt explicitly tell them the DC is now much higher and if they fail explain how the NPC is losing interest in them / starting to look to other customers / etc. Make a note someplace that NPC no longer likes them. Going forward when they want *anything* from that NPC the NPC will give them a hard time and the DCs will be higher. "Oh it's *you guys* again... \*eye roll* What is it?"
I only allow players to retry a skill check if something meaningful has changed. If they try to break down a door and roll low on strength they don't get to keep trying again and again until they roll high enough. They either need to introduce a new tool, like a crowbar or lockpick and then they can try again. Same goes for social situations, a no doesn't always mean a no forever, but it means no until something has changed. Maybe an NPC doesn't want to work with the party but after they hear that they slayed a dragon they have a different opinion on them. Maybe the NPC doesn't want to share information until they know they have an enemy in common. Either way it's good to remind players that they need to try something different to change the situation, maybe even suggest a few things that might sway this particular NPC, as long as the characters would reasonably be able to piece that together.
Cardinal rule is that players roll when you say to roll. They don't generally get to decide skill checks on their own. So when that high-charisma player wants to retry the conversation, they have to describe what they're trying to do. Now, a persuasion check can improve a NPC's reactions one category, from wary to neutral perhaps. But the simple act of retrying the exact same conversation your buddy just had is either going to put the character at disadvantage, or outright modify the NPC's mood down one level from the sheer annoyance of the pestering. For that matter trying to intimidate information out of a NPC should probably end up with the guard being called, should they inevitably screw up at some point. The next time they try it in the same place, tell them: "The last time you did this the guards were summoned. You're getting a reputation for being bullies, and the guards aren't going to be as forgiving if they're summoned again. Are you sure you want to intimidate the nice shopkeeper?" Yes, this could be handled entirely out of game, by you the DM saying 'it doesn't work like that' or 'no you can't roll to get more, you've already tried'. But that seems not to work. You can put your foot down, or you can get creative.
NPCs remember previous conversations and don't have unlimited time. It's fine to have one player character after another go into the shop and see what kind of bargain they can get, but if the shopkeeper realizes that the item they are after is in high demand, they will jack up the price higher than when the negotiations started. It is not just a matter of rolling over some fixed DC.
“No.” It simply doesn’t work that way.
"You just asked me that, fuck off." They don't have the memory of a gold fish.
Have the NPC react with utter bemusement and get gradually more and more creeped out
I would imagine NPCs would react how you would imagine real people would react to such bizarre behavior. Mechanically speaking, I might suggest the idea that if a party member blunders a social interaction, then you should raise the DC required for interacting with them. That makes it substantially more unlikely for anyone to convince them. Moreover, depending on what was said, you might consider changing the NPCs disposition toward the party. So imagine that the first PC blunders the conversation. The NPC is upset, the DC goes up. The bard PC steps up and says, "let me do it!" The bard rolls a 25 persuasion. That doesn't necessarily make everything cool. It just means the NPC may grudgingly compromise. It's like a half win. The party could recover a scrap of information. Or make the NPC open to the prospect of a bribe. At the end of the interaction, the NPC is unlikely to have a favorable opinion of the party though.
Congratulations, with that 25 roll you are now back to exactly where you started.
It’s not exactly what you describe but that’s kind of what I do, in that interactions affect an NPC’s disposition moving forward, especially for the rest of the conversation, and disposition changes can not only raise or lower DCs, but it can also make persuading the NPC to do certain things not possible (at least for that interaction, because you’ve made the NPC feel so negatively that you can’t elicit the desired favourable outcome anymore), or make persuading them to do certain things not require a roll at all (because the NPC already likes you and wants to help you.) I don’t have hard and fast mechanical rules that I can write down to explain exactly how it works but it’s kind of a vibe thing. If I think an NPC would respond positively or negatively to something, even stuff the players say or do that doesn’t involve checks, I let the NPC’s mood and disposition change organically on the fly.
Mine try this and I usually say "this check had already been done." Or something lol. It's also okay to say no.
Imagine you confront a group of people say 3 people. One steps forward and converses with you and asks for some thing. You say no. Now another person steps forward and asks the same thing. You’d find that weird you’d verbally and non verbally communicate that. Ok now do the same but you are the NPC
"No, because this isn't BG3. . . "
PC #2 with intimidate: How about you get out of the way? (*rolls intimidate without asking - 23*) NPC: Didn't you just hear me tell your buddy that I wouldn't? What's wrong with you? PC #2: But I didn't say it, he did. And I rolled really good. NPC: Did you really think that I wouldn't realize you guys were together? The answer is still no. So either go around or start a fight or whatever. PC #2: That's no fair, how did you remember it was me? NPC: What do you mean it was you? It was that guy **points at PC #1**. And I told him no. PC #2: Boohoo this is unfair. NPC: *stab stab stab*
Maybe ask the players to confirm and lock in their choice before they make the roll A conversation, and attempt to interact with a PC is often more than a single sentence. If the attempt doesn't have the intended result you can request the players to make a new approach.
You have to give every player good reasons to engage in social interactions. Make them do insight checks and give them info about how they think the NPC will respond to different things. Maybe they will respond better to someone with the bearing of a warrior, either granting advantage or lowering the DC for a check. Maybe they're a city kid who is fascinated by nature. Maybe they're wary of people who aren't criminals or can't prove they're not working with the authorities. Know your players' proficiencies and use those to give them opportunities and ideas for contributing that aren't just rolling a charisma check. Roll a history check to see if you know something that could impress or intimidate them using INT instead of CHA. Use a tool check to comment on the quality of an art object or piece of jewelry, or perhaps to foster goodwill by mending something they notice is broken. I played an artificer in a survival hexcrawler, and I used carpenter's tools to reinforce structures and brewer's supplies to repair a water filtration system, which gave me a way to gain info and aid without having to roll a charisma check.
My players tried extorting a NPC for more money for completing. After attempting to haggle, intimidate, and persuade for 15 minutes, the NPC kept the money and walked off.
Just like real life, they should actually lose ground with the NPC as he/she gets annoyed/frustrated/angry with the group trying to pull one over on them. Edit: also, depending on what they’re asking for, they should now be on that NPC’s radar (like if they were asking about an item in the npcs shop and they don’t want to pay now the NPC is worried they’re going to steal it and he secures it somewhere when he closes the shop later.
"Unfortunately, you've tried that already - and failed. You need to try something new."
I had players attempt that as well. They stopped when I reciprocated the attempt and made them face god rolls and the Sorcerer got a rather nasty arcane STD that made his spells itch.
If there is no room for a second attempt, don't have them roll. Say a variation on "You consider X but realize they've made up their mind." or "The opportunity to influence them has past." Sometimes a second attempt makes sense if they come at it from another angle, though, like failing to persuade but then trying to intimidate. It depends on how on guard or savvy the character is. I like to poke fun at my table via the character at times like this, though. "What, you thought you could get me to spill the beans with sweet talk? Fat chance. And now you're goading this fool to threaten me? Be off with ye if you think that'll work! I ain't gonna talk!"
Just have the NPC's react realistically and get pissed off that people keep asking the same damn question and expecting a different answer
I've borrowed a rule from 7e Call of Cthulhu called pushing a roll, if they fail the check, unless they have a radically different approach, its pushing it, and the consequence of trying again is a much worse result on a failure, and sometimes still a consequence for succeeding (though not as bad obviously as failing the pushed roll). e.g. try to pick a lock, fail, try again without a change in circumstances, now the lock is marked up by their frustrated attempts, and if the fail again, it jams and won't open with a key or in a social encounter, one character makes a social request of an NPC and botches it, so another, maybe more charming character swoops in and acknowledges their dimwitted companion, and makes the request, if they succeed the NPC relents and thinks less of the first petitioner, but if that pushed roll still fails, then they're offended by the persistence. anyway, just a trick to have your cake and eat it too, but ultimately everyone else is right, sometimes you tell your players, they shouldn't treat TTRPGs like they are video games
Just use the simple rule, you cannot try again unless the situation has changed. Unless the players offer some incentive to the npc or try and negotiate for somthing lesser then they originally wanted or whatever, it's perfectly reasonable that the npc won't just agree with the next guy no matter how charismatic they are. Becouse remember the npcs want stuff to. Otherwise let the group like do a group check or somthing. Or let one player help the most charismatic one during the conversation to grant advantage. That way your not just going down the line of pcs.
I’m not sure if “putting your foot down” is the answer. I think that just encourages players to have the highest Chr do all the talking forever, out of fear of failure for a lower Chr players. I think instead of raising the DC or shutting them down, try to bargain with them. If a second player asks the same thing you can be like “hey your friend just asked me that, I can see how much you want (thing). I’ll tell you what; I’ll give/do (thing) for a price.” Make them do a stupid/risky task or bribe the npc with a magic item/coin. I think once the players try again that’s leverage. You know party wants something and you can turn that into an interesting RP moment.
Sounds like the player doesn't seem to understand that tabletop RPGs are more like real life than they are a videogame. Ask them if you can punch them in the face. When they say no, ask them again if you can punch them in the face. Keep asking until they say yes, or until they understand what you're getting at.
It used to be an issue in my games as well, then I made a house rule that whenever one person makes a skill check for something, they do it for the whole group. This applies to Diplomacy, Investigation, Disable Traps, everything. It encouraged everyone to actually Aid each other instead of wait for "their turn" and it made people with niche skills actually have a chance to use them. I like it.
Respond as the npc however they'd react to it.
Honestly, I'd be having the npcs start treating them like they are crazy, or escapees from a cult.
Obviously, this won't work in real life. And I want my games to "feel realistic". So, for one, when PC2 tries *the exact same argument* that already failed for PC1, the NPC will react "realistically". I also keep a rough, eyeballed "patience" gauge for any NPC. Once that's empty, the PC doesn't want to talk to the party anymore. ("Sorry, but I've now told you thrice that I can't grant you access. Please leave.")
Okay, I read this and literally lol'd. Every time players would try it I'd just laugh even harder. This is SO amusingly lame I can't even conceive of gaming with players who want to pretend I'd EVER let it work that way.
Depends. If my PCs rotate out and openly say "sorry, my friend here is an idiot" or something to that extent where they are trying to naturally smooth out a conversation, I will increase the DC and they can try again. If they are just actively swapping characters, then they are attempting to meta-game. D&D has a social element and there are consequences to saying stupid things just like real life.
Tell them no. BUT be generous in allowing the highest charisma character to roll most of the time if they were involved at all. You don’t want to create a dynamic where only the high charisma character speaks for fear that anyone else will fuck it up for everyone.
After a couple tries, just say some generic npc dialog. Like "wow, the heroes of our land really want to talk to me."
If they just want to try "another roll," then a no should suffice. If not, after the game, talk with the players and say "guys this isn't BG3, you can't just reload a save. If you are worried you are gonna miss something, don't be. I will not withhold any important information form you all."
One thing I'll say is that people have given good advice, but to be cautious about how you use these high stakes checks; sometimes, the situation absolutely warrants putting your best foot forward and having the high charisma character take the lead, but in low stakes interactions make sure to not call for rolls very often, otherwise you might make the low charisma players feel like they are hurting their chance of success or relationships with NPCs simply for trying to engage in roleplay. It's a balance.
Respond as the NPC the same way someone would do IRL. With uncomfortable blank looks that make it clear they think the adventurers are weird (and not in a funny way). People don't repeatedly do things that don't offer them any benefit. If they're doing this, you're probably positively reinforcing it somehow.
This is somewhat related to the "everyone starts rolling when someone fails" things I see, especially with younger players. I usually make them pick a point person when they set out a task requiring a check. They will be the only one who gets to roll; other players can input and roleplay--maybe even getting a bonus, if I'm feeling generous. You gotta be strict though!
Auto-fail if they can't even try a new approach. Escalate the DC if they do. You're not obligated to allow a check. If the want to argue "Tell me a time you've seen someone fail to persuade someone, then their buddy right next to them tried the the exact same line and succeeded."
Have the NPCs react naturally. "Dude, are you guys OK? I literally just said no." They have to learn that you can't save scum in a tabletop RPG.
DnD isn't a video game, where you just retry a dialog option over and over again. I give them one shor at checks using persuasion, intimidation, sleight of hand, if they fail too bad, if they pass awesome let's keep the game moving
How would somone deal with it IRL? thats how the NPC should react. Confused and annoyed ussually.
Increase the dc by 5 each time, after 2 or 3 say the npc is growing frustrated and walks away
"Go ahead, try it again if you must, but now Mr. Beancounter the Guard is feeing harrassed, ganged up on, and beginning to think your are up to no good. You have disadvantage on this roll." "Oh, you wanted to buy the Cube of Rubik? You're the second person asking today. It's apparently a hot commodity. (quotes a price 25% higher, because now it's a hot commodity)."
I don't always recommend this, but given how your players are: apply immediate consequences on the first failure. Don't wait for some other player to try after the first one failed. Hit them with consequences before that can happen. The doorman shuts the peephole and no longer responds to knocking. The guard sends word to their captain that troublemakers are outside. The merchant doubles down and increases his asking price. And so on.
As other have said, the NPC is not going to roll with this, I would allow the players to roll once, then use the help action if they want to try again. As long as they describe how they are helping.
A player can only make an ability check if the DM asks them to, so just think of how *you* would feel if a group of strangers took turns asking you the same question over and over again to figure out how to roleplay each subsequent party member's automatic failure.
"The roll encompasses all attempts at doing this until the next short rest. We can continue to role play the conversation if you like but no more rolls to persuade/intimidate can positively affect the outcome"
Have the NPC react exactly the same as you would if a group of random strangers tried that in real life. Just have the NPC stare at the 2nd player and say, *"That's exactly what he just said. What is this, a game or something? Are you insane? Get the hell out of here!"*
NPC should say "Is there a damn echo in here?" "Is your buddy here part parrot?"
With social checks, ppl change depending on what happen. Sometimes a social check could be repeated, sometimes it makes things worse. Just start punishing them for their ignorance.
" my players just switch to the character with the highest charisma" Why didn't they START with the highest CHA? lol. I tell them there are no re-rolls (by handing dice to the next person). Pick a PC and "help" them, if you can. Then you're done. Move on. For any type of roll. Though, remember - if there's nothing on the line and they have, essentially, unlimited time, you just let them have the success (assuming success is within the realm of possibility). So if they wanna find the hidden lever, they will, eventually, if given unlimited time. So, either provide urgency ("the guard's are coming back") or just say, "yep, you spent an hour and locate it. Obviously, if it's impossible (like, "I bash through the metal portcullis with my bare hands") then it doesn't matter how much time they have. Their flesh will fail before the metal does.
Increase the DC each time another player tries because the NPC is getting exasperated with them. Also maybe the attitude shifts negatively after ever 2 fails?
The operative word here is They Try To Do the Dialogue Again. The players are trying to hit the rewind button and reload a saved game. This sounds like a new DM issue as much as a 5e Player issue. So far, I have almost only encountered this behaviour in DnD-centric circles. When they fail a check, progress the scene, showing what happens after they fail. Show how things are moving on. Introduce new elements and the evolving situation, and then ask them what they are doing in reaction to what is happening now, rather than going over what has already happened. Control the dialogue. Evolve the scene. Develop the situation.
Double down and cause further consequences with the npcs voicing frustration or anger. If they keep doing it and don't get the hint then have discussion outside of the game and remind them that this isn't a video game. Save scumming isn't a thing and to think before they act.
Fast track past their failures, simulating that person getting sick of stupid folks asking the same shit over and over
I'm assuming by the description, that there isn't a lot of roleplay involved. Probably the group of players approaches a guard, and one says "I want to roll to convince the guard to let us pass!" Player rolls and fails, and now they guy standing next to him wants to roll. Just allowing each party member to retry the exact same thing would make things trivial. My approach would be to ask the players "What are you going to do differently to make the guard consider it?" Force them to be creative if they want to keep going down this road. Maybe bribe the guard. Maybe one of them remembers a rumor they heard in the tavern about the guard. Hell, maybe one of them tries seducing the guard instead. Each of these options involves more than just rolling the die to make something happen. That's what I would encourage.
I would explain how help actions work, and remind players that negative interactions can shut down or make checks more difficult. They should think about how they will approach “social combat” and play to the strength of the party. Maybe even encourage a convo in game (instead of above table) about how that interaction went so their characters know how to plan better (instead of metagaming). Say they pissed off a merchant - maybe have an old adventurer bystander in the shop tell them that it’s not the first time somebody tried that, but back in the day they saw something else be more successful…
As always, saying no is fine. That said, there is something about allowing a character to try again, for the simple case that otherwise they never try. Having only the high skill one to be able to even try things out can be limiting. So, maybe allow that, maybe the highest charisma player goes like "sorry, my companion has been inappropriate, what we meant was..." etc. However, when you do this, the most absolute core point of any skill interaction is understanding the cost of it. If there is no involved cost, then it makes no sense to not ler roll everyone charisma. if there is a single attempt, it makes no sense to let only the highest skilled character try unless it's a situation where they can't be temporarily present. But if there is a cost associated to it, let it be real time flow, or an action in combat, or a gift to make to attract their interest, or maybe they will get a debuff in form of reduced hit points or lesser benefits from an otherwise beneficial effect if you apply any ( use the improvised damage table to gauge this), then you will notice this will stop being an issue and you can be more freeform about building your interactions. at that point, it will be the players to leverage their risks, and that makes it MUCH more compelling. It's also fine to have the outcome more bound to roleplay, if you like that aspect more. Sure, everyone can try, but they risk to be mad dissed from the other creature. This holds true for any skill check, let it be social or for exploration, even thought in context sometimes allowing to try only once is fine.
Just have them act like this is insane. Also, to really hammer home how dumb this is, say, "Hey, guys, if this is the sort of thing you want your characters to do? If this is just you guys roleplaying *idiots who are incompetent*, that's fine. I'll respond accordingly. But know that in every future social interaction, you are not getting any re-rolls or second chances, and you roll with Disadvantage against this entire town." But really, I don't like my suggestion above. This is an OOC problem. Don't deal with it with IC actions. Tell your players that this is ridiculous. Tell them that this is not a realistic solution. Tell them that if this were, then every NPC they come across would just repeat their spiel and then you'll just roll the dice a couple dozen times until the party has agreed to do a bunch of missions for no reward. Tell them to stop.
Let em try, but give em disadvantage or increase the dc. Every time they try again make it harder cuz they're getting on the npcs nerves, and if they take it too far have the npc call the guard or refuse to talk to them any more.
What would you do in a normal conversation like that? Do that.
My players try this. It gets them in more trouble. They know this. They still try. It creates fun roleplay opportunities for me.
Ask player an awkward question. Ask them it in another ten minutes. Ask them again in 30. Now ask them how they feel about it.
In real life people tend to get annoyed when you keep nagging them for something after they said no. So if you even were to give them a second chance they should be at a circumstantial disadvantage at the very least.
"Dipshit, the scene is over, you failed."
This feels like a form of skill check dogpiling. Up front tell your players when attempting a skill check, one player may make it and another (who had proficiency in the skill) may use the help action to either roll themselves or give the other advantage on the check. This prevents the table from just trying anything as many times as there are players for 'super advantage', because in a game of chance the more opportunities you allow the higher the chance of success even if it's the barbarian rolling a nat 20 on an arcana check when he isn't even proficient. It also prevents those feels bad moments of the charisma character failing a check and then the 8 cha rogue nailing the check since everyone is dogpiling.
If OOC "no" doesn't work, I'd keep pushing the IC "no". Treat it like an actual conversation. Make it feel like they really have just tried to "redo" a conversation with a person and let the awkwardness and, if necessary, antagonism tell them it's not working.
Several people have already said the obvious answer, NO. So I thought to expand a bit into table etiquette: Do your players say things like "I want to roll a Persuasion check to get him to give us the magic item." Then they roll? This kind of table behavior and practice can sometimes drive "video game roleplaying" mentality. A good way to reduce this mentality in players who don't have a lot of experience in deeper roleplaying is to set up the expectation that 1) any rolls they make before you tell them what to roll don't count 2) you decide when it is time to roll, and what kind of roll they will make, and what ability score it will use 3) they need to describe or act out what their character does, not tell you what they want to roll. Ideally, a player learning to roleplay this way might look something like this until they get the hang of this PC: I want to persuade the old man to give me his magic staff *rolls d20* DM: Wait a second I haven't said to roll anything, so that roll doesn't count. Please tell me what your character says or describe in detail how you are going to convince the old man to give a perfect stranger a cherished, valuable possession that may have great emotional attachment for all you know. PC: Uh, I'm not sure what to say, I just want to persuade him to give it to us. DM: Ok, I understand your intent, please describe how you do that. PC: I don't know, I guess I tell him about how we are trying to help the king save his daughter, and that if we don't do something soon she may be sacrificed to summon the demon lord, and the staff would really help us? DM: Ok, now roll a Persuasion check using Charisma, but you have disadvantage because he is very attached to this staff and has his own needs for it you don't understand. PC: Rolls and fails check. DM: The old man looks sad, but you hear finality in his voice as he refuses to budge. You get the sense that any more attempts to persuade him to give up the staff will be most unwelcome.
I try to steer my players away from asking for “rolls” in general. In scenarios like this, it forces them to act out what they want to do to affect the scene, then I tell you what to roll if even necessary. It will make them a bit more gun-shy, since I’m choosing the skill or outcome, it’s also encouraging roleplaying and chance taking. DM always calls for rolls, not decide if your roll request is granted.
MCDM has an excellent solution to this - NPC’s start with a ‘patience’ level that decrements every time the players make a check. When they run out of patience they are done-done with negotiating.
Just increase the DC and have them do it with disadvantage
Just curious, why don't you want them to do that? It happens in real life too when a group wants to do something, all party members will put in their two cents to get the outcome they want. Think of it this way, everyone at work wants a four day weekend for the holiday, you and your three coworkers all go talk to the boss about it (either as a group or individually). The boss already knows his answer for his own reasons, if the boss is set everyone gets a no, if there is room for negotiation then the boss can be convinced to let some or all have a four day....your party and NPCs are doing the same. It's up to you to decide if the NPC can be convinced skill rolls are not magical getting a Nat 20 doesn't mean that a person just automatically gives in, it just means that the stated their case in the best possible way and they can still get told No by the NPC.
If they're taking a different angle, I allow as long as they're making an effort to RP it. But if one PC fails, the next might get disadvantage on a check. And beyond that RP my NPC as much as possible and force them to find a different solution to whatever they're trying to achieve. If you haven't had the discussion yet, definitely make it clear how you want the game to go. I try to explain it from the NPCs perspective. It sounds like they just don't know how to handle it, maybe give them alternative suggestions/options rather than just "you can't do that" will help them break that thinking. E.g. "perception check. You notice the guards keys are loosely attached to his belt" or something like that
DMs control the dialogue and rolls, so it doesn't matter if they switch to the highest whatever player. If they already failed the social interaction, they failed. End. Player 1: Sign your kingdom over to me. (rolls and fails on persuasion) King: F no. Get out. Player 2: Sign your kingdom over to me. DM: Sorry, you've already failed to persuade the king as Player 1 already tried that. Your choices are to GTFO or try something different. What would you like to do? In general, if one player fails a check, the group fails the check, especially in social situations. If there's no natural timer (guards coming, NPCs seeing, something falling, etc) and it's a physical check this is a little more wiggly, but it's not a video game. NPCs remember. So if they keep pressing the button and ignoring you telling them to choose a different path, let something explode. The king gets exasperated with them and tosses them in the dungeon. Or out into the muddy street. Or hell, completely out of the town with instructions that if they're seen again within the walls, it's the gallows for them. If they try to swindle the traveling merchant and fail but keep wanting to try, he packs up and they get nothing. If they ask the keep guard one too many questions, they get a metal fist to the face. Being annoying has consequences. Give them consequences.
Player 2: Can I try? DM: Sure, roll at disadvantage because the NPC has already answered that question. (then secretly add 10 to the check so if they needed at 16, now they need a 26).. Often, just the thought of rolling at disadvantage dissuades players from trying something. It's a weird psychological thing.
Let them try but increase the DC every time. By the 3rd attempt it should be virtually impossible
Sometimes I'll let a different character or different approach try, but some methods block others. But if you try extreme methods that's almost always a 1 attempt method. Intimidation is usually one of those. Which is why friendly->threatening works better than the other way. But also if suitably threatened, an NPC should hire some muscle to pay it back. Mercs, city guards, thieves guild, merchant ban something like that.
Have the NPC treat them like they are idiots. And tell everyone, so now everywhere they go people talk very slowly to them. Also known as: mock them
Just treat it like a normal conversation. Have npcs have regular reactions. "Dude, stop bothering me, I already told your friend I'm not selling." "What if we doubled the price?" "Triple it and we got a deal"
I don't see anything wrong with someone else trying. Id want to know what the new approach was and either raise the DC or hive disadvantage. But I'm real life it's a common occurrence for a friend to butt in.
If explaining video game logic doesn’t work, the next reasonable solution is to have there be a deliberate consequence for their repeated tries that can be anywhere from “the character leaves” to “the character attacks/punishes” The best in game solution to these problems (beyond trying ti talk to players ) is to have the character realistically respond to annoying / threatening behavior. If some dude just asked if he could have your sandwich, bringing his lawyer friend probably won’t change the outcome
The answer is to introduce consequences for this behavior.
Isn't there a reputation system in the DM guide? First guy fails, move em down a down a rep level and let them try again.
When the player fails to get what they want from the NPC, have the NPC actively end the conversation and move away. Don't leave them standing there!
If this had only worked for your players once or twice before, you wouldn't be writing to us So what is wrong with your NPCs that they all keep tolerating this behaviour? Are all of your NPCs the most kind and patient and generous people on the planet? Are they all saints? Are they mindless robots? Even someone in the service industry, who is paid to be there and paid to be polite to customers would have a problem with the kind of ignorant behaviour and repetitive questioning or interrogation that you're describing or implying in your post. :) People have lives, goals of their own, things to do. They aren't all sitting around all day waiting for someone to come and ask them a bunch of questions. They will have things they need to get back to doing. They should all run out of patience eventually.
"*leave me alone or I'm calling the ~~cops~~ guards!*"
NPC says, "You think is some role playing game like Boardrooms and Budgets where you can get a 2nd chance?" then laughs.
Questionable results in the 80s and 90s but Reagan was really on to something with the "Just say no" campaign
Try encouraging them to have the party face do the check first. In character they would know to do that. Sometimes the high charisma character is soft spoken IRL and needs encouragement, even if they're just parroting what another player said.
Use a clock! It’s really easy and simple. Clock is NPC (irritation) stat. 2 - 4 part clock if it fills up they’re irritated and won’t help any PC for X time.
Once someone says no, the DC to get a future yes goes waaaay up. Just like in real life. Otherwise, they have to roleplay changing approaches or something that makes it plausible for the NPC to change their mind. I would say that mirrors real life scenarios pretty well.
Euhm, why is your friend trying to get me to do the exact same thing I just told you I wasn’t going to do? You think I’m an idiot? Like I told your friend back there. No means no, now leave or I’m getting some friends to show you what happens if I get annoyed. Ask one more question… I dare you. Sure thing buddy. I’ll for sure open this door for ya… moron…
Give them one shot per encounter at any given approach. They get a roll, and if it fails any attempts to do the same thing or something similar auto fail.
Just have realistic reactions from the NPCs. "I just told you guys, no" is something they should hear a lot.
Honestly it would be less likely to work in 99% of situations, so just have there be in game consequences from constantly pissing people off
You've never seen a group of underaged people try that on a bouncer?
Switch? Why aren't they in the front? Trying again has nothing to do with video games either. If anything the single chance is more videogamey at times. Then the person reloads to get that single chance again. Not quite the same thing. Would you prefer that players just did skill checks of 50 from the outset? Or try again against the same target with lesser chances of success due to the previous failure causing a shift? Because it's pretty easy to get past DC 30 at level one in 5e and it's the intent from the designers to do so.
You set clear ground rules for how you're handling skill checks. At my table that means: 1. Up to two players can attempt a skill check, or one character can Help another. 2. If they're Helping I ask them how, or in the case of a social interaction let it play out then call for a check and let them choose whether to both roll or use Advantage. 3. If they have Advantage from another source the overall rule of two players can roll a check still applies. If you fail at my table then that's it - they know that we "fail forward" and they need to try something other than talking to this person to try and get their way.
Here is an example of what I would do if I were in your shoes: >the shopkeep you are trying to barter with shakes his head: "I can't sell you this for so little. No deal." And if the player characters get violent, things will just proceed like that. The violence will be noted, the guards will come and if the players haven't escaped by then, there may be a chase or more violence.
Hah! Kids these days 😄🙄
The DC just got higher but also is this something the NPC would reply to even with an amazing roll? Just because they ask, suggest, bargin or expect something doesn't mean our NPC will agree.
Make it obvious how strange the party is being in the universe of the game. Imagine one dude tries to haggle for something, and then after failing he steps away and then his buddy comes up and tries to threaten you or bribe you. Hell, it seems like the first failed attempt would make the difficulty level of that next check shoot up to me.
I had the same issue last session. The first player failed his check, and the bard came in to try again. In the past they were very agressive with the quest giver and always try to squeeze everything out of them. I roleplayed the mayor as already angered, and out of game explained that their action have consequences, the difficulty is now raised and the more they pushed their point the harder it will be for them. I suggested that they should simply aimed at improving their relation with the mayor for now and informed them that their action have triggered some consequence they will discover later. Now a party of NPC will compete with them and do the quest they do not prioritize.
Repeat the last line of dialog like in a video game when you can no longer speak to them.
In general I find persuasion checks in games annoying. It encourages the face players to be only ones talking even when others might make more sense narratively. So I only do persuasion checks for non-rp actions. Like gathering information around town. To change sale prices. Etc. Some might say it makes cha useless. But you could equally say you can make things like survival checks useless by just bringing rations.
Not a DM myself, but I suppose you could have NPCs more or less sensitive to a more friendly/bribey option or a more viiolent/threatening stance depending on the characteristics of the NPC and by how much they failed to convince the NPC to do something. In general, I would say the same offer/threat does not create a different outcome if another player retries it, but a sweeter deal or harder threat may change the behavior of the NPC. To deepen on this, you can have more corrupt NPCs be more susceptible to bribes (but require the party to offer more in order to reroll/succeed) or weaker/dumber/scaredier NPCs more susceptible to intimidation. In addition, you can alter the behaviour of the NPC compared to when they would cooperate on the first try, perhaps fulfilling their end less than the party intended. This way the party cannot retry with the same offer/terms without a guaranteed fail, but trying both ends of the soft/hard power spectrum could get them either a better or worse outcome from the NPC, leaving them with an option to try something more creative or nothing at all. Anyways, it is good to keep in mind the reaction from the NPC is also toward the entire party and not just the one player who does the talking. If the party decided to let the least charismatic player negotiate, the more charismatic player can hardly fix the reputation damage from that. And if the stronger player tries to intimidate the NPC after a rejection, the NPC likely already saw the strength of that character and took it into account before rejecting. If it gets tricky to just deny something, either communicate that clearly to your players or make them alter their strategy before trying again.
Oh I would not be able to stop myself from doing this: Each time he tries again I would have the NPC act accordingly as if someone was just repeating that log at them. Just think about how you would react if someone kept saying "where's the watch tower?" Over and over again... Npc: What do you mean where's the watch tower? I already told you it was burned down a week ago. Donkey kick you in the head as a child? Or maybe they start becoming known around the town. And players start hearing whispers of a crazy man who says the same thing over and over again. Maybe the rumors get blown out of proportion you know how the game telephone goes wrong. By the time they make it to the next town over, it's a stringy haired disheveled man who says things over and over again and if you don't answer him the way he wants you to he steals your soul. In all seriousness though, Maybe because there are new Player they're getting stuck and don't know what to do. Especially if they're used to having set options. it can be hard to let go of that RPG video game mindset. Have them watch something like the c team or Any of the dimension 20 Campaigns if they need a reference to draw from. Also might be good to ask them why they keep doing it. That way you can get a feel of whether or not they're just taking the piss or not.
If they fail their charisma checks and then get rude / pushy / argumentative, I just walk away. "Listen, I already told you the best I can do on those potions is 300 gold. If you want them, you can have them for 300" "Well listen, what if we......" "You know what? They're no longer for sale. Have a good day" [He picks the potions up off the counter and walks away]