What do you do with players who want to Charisma their way out of everything?

You can totally let em roll to do something like that, IF they actually have a compelling angle. There are tons of incredibly charismatic neo Nazi leaders, but i disagree with there beliefs so they arent ever going to persuade me. In the same way, if the bbeg is super stalin and you're trying to charisma him into the joys of capitalism, it isn't going to fucking work.

The player is a loss, but if you want to watch the rhetoric die, posit the opposite interaction to them: "well, what if she has really high charisma?would it be fair for them to be able to roll to sway them against your teammates?"

They will say it is different, and then you can kick them out.

You could explain it in terms of how other characters work - no other character is going to be able to stop the BBEG with a single roll. Just as the BBEG (ugh) has multiple hit points to chew through, they have counter arguments the persuadermancer has to argue through. I'd have no problem with somebody who wants to talk their way through an encounter, backed up by a few persuasion rolls, but if everyone else requires multiple actions with multiple chances to fail, so does the talk-y person.

Remind them that it is ROLEPLAY NOT ROLLPLAY!
Make the player actually come up with their impassioned arguements, compelling reasons, stunning rhetoric and brilliant logic.
If they can convince you, they convince the villan...
Alternatively, just reverse the standard player response to "climactic villain expostitory rant #1" and use the opportunity it affords to launch a free attack whilst they're distracted; this is the BBEG (Ugh!) for a reason!

Give the BBEG immunity to charisma based persuasion rolls.

So you make the BBEG autistic?

That or a psychopath, sociopath who is also a misanthrope.

Or deaf/only able to communicate telepathically!

I really like this idea and hope OP does it

>Today I was told that not-adhering to to notion that a high persuasion roll should be enough to convince the BBEG to stop being evil means that I'm exhibiting "male perspective bias" f
This is a thing that really happened.

Completely unrelated, but I miss having quest threads on this board.

1. I bet you hated Fallout New Vegas

2. You shouldn't need a strength roll to lift a horse overhead. Horses have weight and lifting one overhead is simply a matter of having enough strength to lift one (in the 20+ range depending on the size of the horse).

That said, your player is terrible.

>BBEG

Ugh.

Repeat after me - Charisma is not Mind Control

There are some situations you can't just talk yourself out of, that CIA team who's just busted in on your little gang of vampires plotting to blow up a Settite block out the sun device? Nah, they're not gonna talk.
That daemon that just stepped out of the twisting nether to feast on your gizzards? Not gonna chat.
Trouble is, in my view, when people play videogames where you can just [Persuade] their way through life (and in some contexts that's not a terrible thing) they might be inclined to view it as counter to my initial statement and go into games with that mindset.

Only way to fix them is to thwart them.

>What can change the nature of a man?

>A nat 20 LOL

I think part of the reason this issue comes up so often is because of the sheer vague nature designers offer of how persuasion rules are actually meant to work in the game.

A system of setting a DC value to evaluate how difficult a task is, letting the player roll and allowing them to pass the task works well for say, picking a lock, jumping over a chasm or dodging a fireball. But it breaks down when we try to factor in the myriad and complex nature of human interaction. One does not tend to be able to walk up to a stranger and ask them to change the fundamental nature of who they are, agree to some hazardous, or self destructive course of action or entirely alter their plans and goals. This isn't to say this isn't possible, but it certainly would take longer than one conversation and involve gaining trust, getting to know somebody . Perhaps a conman could saunter in and trick someone out of a lot of their money but even this would take some kind of extensive long con.

Designers tend to steer away therefore of defining any rules for such a thing as there will always be inevitable weird and exploitable loopholes and failures in the system. ( Take a look at how busted the 3.5 D&D diplomacy rules are for example) It can often be too complicated to reduce human interactions to sheer dice rolls and designers tend to bank on the humans at the table being the best 'computer' to work these things out. Unfortunately designers underestimate the sheer autism of most roleplayers

I mean cha has never been by any rule set I know of describable as mind control. Even in the cesspit that is that one game you know I'm referencing, at most it changes the disposition of the npc you're talking to.

Kudos the hostile person who wanted to murder rape you with their evil plans, are if you're charismatic enough and have an argument to pitch their way is now at most what ambivalent to your presence?

>how do we fix them?
You can't fix stupidity.

>a high strength roll can't make your character lift a horse over his head.
What the fuck? That's literally what it's for eat a million dicks you fat fucking faggot ass chewing mother fucker cunt stain garbage damn

Brilliant. Well done.

>Cont
In my games I make persuasion more akin to a trade.

The base DC for the success is 10+the NPC's wisdom and charisma modifier+their relationship to the pc ( on a sliding scale from +10 hated enemy +5 enemy, +2 dislike 0 just met , -2 friends ,-5 good friends -10 intimate friends.

The player has to clearly state what he wants the person being persuaded to do. This has to be clear and not something vague like 'be a good guy'.

I attach a further numerical qualifier to this from -10 to +10 based on how much risk there is to the person being asked and how much it goes against their nature to do so. We shall call this modifier A.

The player then has to say what leverage they're offering in exchange. What are they offering in return for the exchange. Such as a bribe, or a service or favour. I attach a numerical qualifier to this from -10 to +10.

The DC for the check then becomes base dc+a(request)+b(leverage)

If the player beats the DC then the deal goes forwards. If they fail by more than 5 the deal does not go forward. If they fail by 5 or less the NPC adds a 'yes but 'qualifier to the deal altering it someway in their favour. As a caveat obviously impossible requests such as asking a dragon to give you his horde for a copper or asking the king to crown you because you're a good a king can just be said aren't possible.

As a simple fast rule to add to that always be asking yourself 'what would this NPC want to ask for to do what the players are asking them' and likewise ask the players what they would do to get the desired goal they want.

While still not a perfect system it at least adds some layers to persuasion that make it a more interesting affair .

I normally meet them half-way. A stellar Charisma roll won't automatically "win D&D forever", but it might make the BBEG reconsider his choices, opening up for more RP and rolls which might go one way or the other.

This is probably the best argument to deal with, if he's a gamer, point him to the charisma checks in both Fallout New Vegas and the Mass Effect series, if you are gonna try and convince the boss to stop doing the bad thing, you a.) don't just say he's evil and bad, but appeal to some other sense (like warning Lanius in F:NV that if he's attacking here with all the army of the Legion, they will lose all the ground they gained, so maybe don't be stupid), and also, it has to be a lot of checks in a row. The first few can be fairly easy, but if your trying to tell someone their entire philosophy is wrong, then that's when you will need to really convince them. Also, realistically, the person won't just hand themselves in, they may either retreat (like Lanius in F:NV), to return later, or, they may see that EVERYTHING they did has been wrong, and just end up killing themselves (kinda like the Illusive Man or Saren in the Mass Effect Trilogy).

No-one will be told by someone that they are bad and go "Oh, I'm so sorry, I will go hand myself to the authorities", they will tell you to fuck off at first, and then maybe also attack you if they're sick of you, be it physically or verbally. Have that be a part of an encounter, if the person doesn't be careful with wording, he may end up attacking anyway, although if the player can still convince him, he just has to deal with Big Bad maybe throwing some goons at him at the same time.

>"They rolled a..."
>roll behind screen
>"... twenty. Now you're evil."
>"What?"
>"They're a non-violent character."
>"He can't just turn me evil like that!"
>"Did you just assume their gender?"

>"well, you said I should be evil, right?"

>Almost all problem players I have are these types of people who want to roll up a charisma based character and act indignant when I tell them a good persuasion roll can't perform miracles just like a high strength roll can't make your character lift a horse over his head.
The real problem OP is with you: when you start a game you should make it clear what you accept and what you don't. You have no excuse because you talk like that's not the first time this happened to you.

I think he means it won't work if your character doesn't already have the ability to perform similar feats of strength. Still not a great example

Add robust social combat mechanics for 'high stakes' moments (prevents 'I ask king for his daughter, here is a nat 20'), have npcs speak to them in a way that requires the player to reply if they don't want to look like a cunt, tie experience and progress to achieving character goals.

The reverse of this is much much worse. I made a party face and couldn't convince any NPC of anything because the GM insisted on "roleplaying" every single encounter which consisted of no dice being rolled and the NPC acting like a complete cunt to me.

This was even true when we were trying to infiltrate a cult and we were dressed like cult members with mockups of the cults tattoos and knew identification phrases. It was fucking infuriating.

What edition?

Do not let people out with *just* a roll. If they want to persuade the villain to back down, talk them down, or get them to surrender nonviolently, make them work for it, make them actually talk, *then* have a roll to see how well it got across, with modifiers for the quality of the role-play. Don't let them pull stupid reasoning, make them actually attempt to appeal to the villain's humanity (or reasonable facsimile thereof).
If they're properly invested in the game, they won't bitch out of this.

>But I got a 19 before considering my bonuses! That's gotta work!