Failing dialogue rolls can be fun in a tabletop game. Because there the player must then use his creativity to he still reaches his goal. BUT this requires the flexibility of a human game master.
In a computer game I am limited to what the player designers have planned. In some games this works quite well (e.g. Wasteland3) there I am easily punished, if I don't succeed with a throw, but I can still reach my target. SaveScumming because of failing rolls is not necessary there. But in this respect Larian does a bad job at BG3-EA.
Example: Tiefling child.
I play a good hero. According to my definition this means that I save children and not watch them being killed.
If the throw succeeds --> all is well.
If the throw does not succeed, there are a lot of other options:
- I could cut the head off the snake before it bites... damn I am a hero with super fast reflexes
- I could use one of my healing potions to keep the child alive until the healer from the next room is there.
- I could use one of my revival scrolls.
- ...
- And if everything does not help, I could call the responsible person to account.
Which of these options did Larian implement? Nothing. Totally unimaginative --> Dice check failed --> Child dead --> Frustration with me --> Save Scumming.
I don't want to save this Tiefling child because I have ingame a great reward / effect, but because it seems right to me (player) and only this result gives me a good feeling.
In the next scene the same thing happens. Failing-roll --> Nettie attacks you --> Here you can at least beat her unconscious.
But probably Larian did not consider this solution. Otherwise there could have been a dialogue after the fight where Nettie asks you again to kill yourself when you start to transform. That would have been much more satisfying than just leaving her lying unconscious.
In other words: Not the failing dialogue rolls are the problem, but the unimaginativeness with which Larian handles them.
