5E Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs
Page 1 of 79 123456789101151 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 783
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,246

    Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

    Scenarios:

    Player: "I think he's lying."
    DM: "Roll Insight."
    Player: "Um...4."
    DM: "He rolls Deception 12. So you believe him."
    Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?"
    DM: "You believe him; his Deception was higher than your Insight."

    DM: "The guard rolls Intimidate and gets an 18. Yeah, you're intimidated."
    Player: "Oh, ok I guess I'll just keep moving then."

    Player: "I don't think I want to do this quest for only 100 gold."
    DM: "The magistrate rolls Persuade and gets...a natural 20!"
    Player: "Darn. Looks like I'll take the quest."

    Any reactions? How many people play the way that's described in those three scenarios?

  2. #2
    That is the kind of thing I imagine disadvantage is for. Intimidated? Disadvantage on all rolls against the guard. Deception? Disadvantage on further interrogation. The emperor one is unique, as it is a bargain being made. People would haggle, so each failed challenge(persuasion) would likely result in disadvantage at your next attempt, or outright failure if you shoot too high. For instance, people would respond to 100 with 500. Emperor says 150, player says 450, and so on. But failing rolls would mean that, instead of meeting in the middle at 250, you would do it for 200, and succeeded rolls would raise it to 300 or 350.
    XP Dragoslav, viviolay gave XP for this post

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanliss View Post
    That is the kind of thing I imagine disadvantage is for. Intimidated? Disadvantage on all rolls against the guard. Deception? Disadvantage on further interrogation. The emperor one is unique, as it is a bargain being made. People would haggle, so each failed challenge(persuasion) would likely result in disadvantage at your next attempt, or outright failure if you shoot too high. For instance, people would respond to 100 with 500. Emperor says 150, player says 450, and so on. But failing rolls would mean that, instead of meeting in the middle at 250, you would do it for 200, and succeeded rolls would raise it to 300 or 350.
    When I DM (not often) I let both players and monsters to use skills, but that last one the quest giver doesn't sit right with me...

    I will say as a player I would except any of them... I mean again that last one is the most questionable, but If the DM did it I would roll with it since he wanted us to go on the mission...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,246
    This is maybe a better example of Intimidate:

    "The evil wizard threatens to blast you with a fireball if you don't tell him where you hid the key."
    "Give me your worst, gnome!"
    "He rolls Intimidate and gets....a 17."
    "Darn. Ok, I tell him where it is."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Millbrook, NY
    Posts
    965
    I never play that way.


    Player: "I think he's lying."
    DM: "Roll Insight."
    Player: "Um...4."
    DM secretly rolls Deception 12.
    DM: "He seems trustworthy."
    Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?"
    DM: "You don't think he's lying, but you don't have to believe him."

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Elfcrusher View Post
    Scenarios:

    Player: "I think he's lying."
    DM: "Roll Insight."
    Player: "Um...4."
    DM: "He rolls Deception 12. So you believe him."
    Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?"
    DM: "You believe him; his Deception was higher than your Insight."

    DM: "The guard rolls Intimidate and gets an 18. Yeah, you're intimidated."
    Player: "Oh, ok I guess I'll just keep moving then."

    Player: "I don't think I want to do this quest for only 100 gold."
    DM: "The magistrate rolls Persuade and gets...a natural 20!"
    Player: "Darn. Looks like I'll take the quest."

    Any reactions? How many people play the way that's described in those three scenarios?
    1. You are unable to get a read on him.
    2. I would describe how tough the guard looks with the implication that it might not be a good idea to mess with them.
    3. I would say something like 'well this is the going rate for this sort of quest, and the magistrate knows it.'

    With the exception of charm or compulsion effects I don't think it is a good idea to take away player agency. I think it is completely okay to change the way they might approach a scene by describing it in a way that matches what their character perceives or knows.
    XP S'mon, Sezarious, Kalshane, semihippie, Fedge123 and 1 others gave XP for this post

  7. #7
    I'm a good for the goose good for the gander type of GM. So in some campaigns, ones where the players are more out of game ok with just RP we forget the social skills exists all together, but if the Bard can bluff check his way out of trouble, so can the evil viser to the king...

    I will add that a few weeks ago we used such a system very well with PCs investigating the death of a high court member... we used skill rolls apposed by behind the screen rolls...

    something like this:
    Player: I think the cook is in on it... so I ask him where he was... and roll a 16 insight, is he lieing
    Me the DM rolls behind the screen gets a 19: I tell him nope, he's telling you the truth he was delivering eggs at the time...

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by HardcoreDandDGirl View Post
    When I DM (not often) I let both players and monsters to use skills, but that last one the quest giver doesn't sit right with me...

    I will say as a player I would except any of them... I mean again that last one is the most questionable, but If the DM did it I would roll with it since he wanted us to go on the mission...
    I apologize if my wording implied you had no choice with the last. In all of the options you have the choice to disengage (IMO) I was just saying how I would handle it, if the players wanted to continue interaction.

  9. #9
    These things require good players to make work. That said, I generally try not to enforce too many checks that will dictate a characters actions unless it's something like a spell. Just because the PC is "intimidated" doesn't mean he has to walk away in fear. Instead I let them know that their character is clearly shaken or otherwise understands the NPC means business, and that if they keep pushing back they'll have disadvantage to some checks.

    For example:

    "The evil wizard threatens to blast you with a fireball if you don't tell him where you hid the key."
    "Give me your worst, gnome!"
    "He rolls Intimidate and gets....a 17. You can insist that you don't know where it is, but any further rolls outside of combat, and during your first round of combat with him will be with a disadvantage."


    In this case, the character is intimidated, but the player still retains control over their decisions.
    XP Dragoslav, Tanaka Chris, gyor, brehobit gave XP for this post

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    City of Sharn
    Posts
    4,868
    first to be fair this started with me in another thread, so let me start by saying I don't understand why NPCs and monsters have skills if you aren't supposed to use them...

    now

    Quote Originally Posted by ad_hoc View Post
    1. You are unable to get a read on him.
    2. I would describe how tough the guard looks with the implication that it might not be a good idea to mess with them.
    3. I would say something like 'well this is the going rate for this sort of quest, and the magistrate knows it.'

    With the exception of charm or compulsion effects I don't think it is a good idea to take away player agency. I think it is completely okay to change the way they might approach a scene by describing it in a way that matches what their character perceives or knows.
    I don't give magic an edge on skill if a charm can take it away so can a bluff...


    part of this comes from some BAD experences with 3e when we had a used car salesman as a player who used to dump CHa and still talk DMs (me and others) into agreeing with him because he always sounded so logical... we didn't even realize we were doing it until one day a fellow player snaped and yelled "My cha 19 sorcerer was ignored AGAIN for that smarmy [redacted] why do I even put ranks in diplomacy!!" followed shortly (that same year but in a different campaign) by a new player to our group saying "I just want to diplomancy him... let me roll I have a +XX" where XX was a high mod... we came up with an idea that has run with since then... if you have a convicing argument get a bonus to your roll, if you have a stupid one take a penelity... but always roll

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Similar Threads

  1. How Useful is Intimidate?
    By Corwin of Amber in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Saturday, 26th February, 2011, 01:15 PM
  2. Deceive Item
    By darkbard in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, 31st May, 2007, 10:49 PM
  3. What Would Persuade You To Play A Fully Classed Fighter?
    By airwalkrr in forum *Pathfinder, Starfinder, Older D&D Editions (4E, 3.x, 2E, 1E, OD&D), D&D Variants, OSR
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: Wednesday, 21st December, 2005, 06:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •