D&D 5E Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

[GMforPowergamers]

Nod. It's a given. The Grandfather of Assassins tries to intimidate your character. But, you can RP your character as cool as a cucumber, dice be damned, because no mere skill can change how you decide your character reacts, but a low level mage drops Scare on your character, better not roll a 1 on that save.


Better? ;P

yea, because skills don't matter and the assassin can't be intimidating... because reasons... and because PCs like data have 100% control over there internal emtions or lack there of...unlike any living person ever.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Every version of D&D is to a certain extent, and in some ways 5E is less so than some systems. I would question the amount that a player can drive things when they have to look to the DM to for virtually everything.

I'm just talking about resolution, so it's a fairly narrow domain the player is driving. The DM narrates along, only if a player character does something is there resolution - which may still be nothing more than the DM narrating the results of that action, with no reference to a check or other role.

Sorry if that's not a very deep or useful insight.

And importantly, it's just as easy for an NPC to trigger a dice roll in 5E as it is in 4th, 3rd, or any of the earlier editions, since the DM has the information needed to do so, while in many cases it's harder for the player, because the player often doesn't have that level of information.

I'd expect a 5e DM to narrate NPC actions without resorting to dice as often as with PCs, since the DM does have that extra level of information, he can resort to an uncertain outcome less often.

It's the strength and weakness of 5E. A good DM can do a lot with it, and it can be the most fun a player has ever had, but it takes not only a good DM, but really a full group of people willing to fully engage in the game to really reach it's potential.

I think a good enough DM is sufficient, even working with inexperienced or casual players.

With a DM centric game like 5E...

DM Empowering is not exactly the same as DM-centric. The center of attention and action is always the PCs. 5e Empowers the DM, very clearly makes the system itself sub-ordinate, building DM-dependence into its sub-systems, which as you rightly point out, is fantastic with a good enough DM, but risky until the DM gets there.

That resolution always relies on the DM to make a pass/fail/check ruling for any player-declared action is a foundational element of that.

 

[Hriston]

OK, I think that choice A is closer to my games (although to be fair it's a little of both maybe 70% A and 30%B)

Sure, watching events play out from a distance can be enjoyable. I have nothing against that style of play, and I think we also agree that an RPG offers more in terms of a first-person experience. It sounds like we're on the same page here.

I've now been told I am all three... I am often called 'gamest' because I put fun at the table first...sometimes I get call 'narativist' but this is the first time I've been called simulationist....

I really wasn't trying to label you. I used that word in an attempt to describe a game where, for example, the result of a Charisma (Intimidation) check could determine that a PC is pressured into meeting the demands of an intimidator. From your response, I now know you don't play that way, so you need not feel that I was applying that label to your games.

I have a love/hate relationship with wargames... it feels weird to me. I got into a big fight with one of my older players when he tried to run a campaign of a wargame (10 players in a tournny style) because the first time I played him I had all my minis hidden out of his mini's line of sight, but he still just moved into line of sight...his argument was I was to "RPG"minded he knew everything out of game...

This is the kind of thing I was getting at by bringing up wargames and simulation in this thread. The way I see it, in a wargame, the figures are essentially NPCs. There is no meta-game because the players are removed observers with all the information, but the figures are subject to circumstances beyond the players' control, including mental effects like morale. I would imagine that negotiations between two figures in a wargame could be simulated and resolved with something like a contested Charisma check that the players would abide by. In an RPG with PCs though, I wouldn't do that, and it doesn't sound like you'd do that either.

That is what I like most about RPGs...

We agree about so many things.

I very much disagree

Well... action resolution gets you to the next decision point, so I suppose in that way it helps with roleplaying...

yes that is true... but it's not roleplaying at all if you have your Int 8 wis 9 character always come up with brilliant plans.

Why? Do you think players should have to make an Intelligence check to contribute ideas?

It's not roleplaying to talk about how your str 8 character carries a 150lb bundle of straw/hey.

Apart from 120 lbs being the limit a Str 8 character can lift, what's to prevent the player from having the character make the attempt? How is that not roleplaying?

It's also not roleplaying to have your cha 8 half orc with a barbarian like background to charm everyone you meet just because you can out talk the DM...

This is all quite prescriptive. Playing against type is a valid choice, IMO.

or most important to this discussion, I don't think it's role playing to just decide that your character is in no way motivated or moved by in game stimiuli...

When I say my character isn't intimidated by your Orc, what I mean is that my character doesn't agree to do what your Orc is trying to get me to do by trying to intimidate me. I think 90% of the arguing on this thread has been caused by people using different definitions of intimidate. I'm getting the idea now that when you say it, you mean the Orc's presence causes me to have an involuntary visceral reaction. When I say it, it means his attempt to intimidate me has had the result desired by the Orc. I have agreed to do as he wishes, because I fear what he will do to me if I don't. My position throughout this thread is that the dice can't make that decision for my PC.

More later...

 

[sunshadow21]

I don't usually break up quotes like I am about to, but you have a large number of interesting points to respond to.

I'm just talking about resolution, so it's a fairly narrow domain the player is driving. The DM narrates along, only if a player character does something is there resolution - which may still be nothing more than the DM narrating the results of that action, with no reference to a check or other role.

Sorry if that's not a very deep or useful insight.

It is and isn't at the same time. The big issue that comes up frequently is when a conflict arises between multiple PCs, whatever the reason may be or how large it may be. 90% of what I impose as a DM over PCs via NPCs is usually because one stubborn player doesn't want to go along with the rest of the party, and as they argue, I lose the attention of most of the rest of the players. Having a particularly notable NPC and basically force resolution is often the only in game solution I have to keep the game moving along. Even then, I rarely force a specific resolution, as long as some kind of resolution is met, and usually just the threat is enough to get that resolution needed to keep the game moving. I find that there has to be the option of an NPC overriding player character and/or party actions, but if everything else is done right, that option is rarely called upon.

I'd expect a 5e DM to narrate NPC actions without resorting to dice as often as with PCs, since the DM does have that extra level of information, he can resort to an uncertain outcome less often.

This is where I expect the DM to separate NPC knowledge from DM knowledge just like I expect a player to separate character knowledge from player knowledge. No one NPC is going to have the full knowledge of the DM anymore than any given character is going to have the knowledge of an experienced player. Just like I expect players to work from the general position of their current character, I run individual NPCs from their respective backgrounds and knowledge bases, meaning that uncertain outcomes remain at more or less the same probability with any given NPC. No single NPC can influence the shape of the story any more or less than any single PC. A group of NPCs has no more or less influence than the full party of PCs. My full knowledge as a DM almost never comes into play until the party starts dealing directly with the ultimate boss or his direct henchmen, and by that time, the players should know almost as much as I do about the general direction of the campaign, and have ways of influencing it that the boss doesn't automatically know about. A DM that doesn't separate knowledge this way, I completely agree with your point, but that is not how I, or many, run it.

I think a good enough DM is sufficient, even working with inexperienced or casual players.

DM Empowering is not exactly the same as DM-centric. The center of attention and action is always the PCs. 5e Empowers the DM, very clearly makes the system itself sub-ordinate, building DM-dependence into its sub-systems, which as you rightly point out, is fantastic with a good enough DM, but risky until the DM gets there.

That resolution always relies on the DM to make a pass/fail/check ruling for any player-declared action is a foundational element of that.

You have had far better experience in that arena than I have if you believe that. "Good enough" in terms of both DM and player is difficult if the only time the people see each other is at the game and different people have experience at different tables. The time in the game itself is often not enough to fully get everyone on the same page. A good enough DM and all brand new or casual players can work simply because the DM isn't fighting any particular expectations that the players may have. But mix a good enough DM with players who already have experienced the game at another table, and good enough often is not enough to keep the campaign on track. My own current campaign is a shining example of this. I am a decent, but far from great, DM. I am in a group that rotates DM duties, and most of the other DMs and players know each other quite well, playing together elsewhere; I am very much one of the outsiders of the group. My campaign almost didn't get past the first encounter of getting the party together because, no matter how much I tried to tell them I did not run the same style of game that the usual DMs did, they still brought all of their normal expectations to the table. I was able to get through it because this was a 3.5 game, and the rules carried us long enough for a common ground to be found. With 5E, it would have died immediately, and it probably never would have even been attempted in the first place, because I knew that I would be fighting a lot of built in expectations no matter what I did, far more than my current skill as a DM could easily bridge in the critical first couple of sessions. Hence why I argue that "good enough" is difficult enough to pull off in 5E to the point that it basically doesn't happen. A patient pick up group, which the group above basically is, or a group of good friends will reach there after two or three false starts (this is the fourth attempt at a 3.5 based game in this group I know of, and only one other that I have been there for has gotten past the first month's worth of sessions), but most groups, especially ones with newer players, don't have that kind of patience. It's usually hook them or lose them in the period of one or two sessions. Not a lot of time for a "good enough" DM to work with.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Another not too closely related sub-topic: 5e's basic example of play, what I consider it's core resolution system in a technical sense, is player driven. Player declares an action, the DM narrates the results of the action. Earlier I asked if an NPC intimidating a player really fit that. Now I'll go out on a limb and say that it doesn't. Rather, the player will do something that will lead to an interaction with an NPC, that might involve the NPC trying to intimidate (or deceive or whatever) and the DM would take that into account in narrating the results of the PC's action, including, possibly, a check or opposed check. Just how I'd see it working in 5e.

I would argue that the examples of play and the way the PHB is written to be player centric is because 1) it's the player's handbook, so being focused towards players is expected; and b) those examples/rules are also introducing the concepts of an RPG, and how RPGs differ from, say, a boardgame where you only have strictly limited and enumerated choices. In that light, it's perfectly reasonable for those passages to read exactly the way they do and yet not be intended as iron-clad assumptions that players can never be told what their characters feel.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm going to skip a lot of what is going on because I think we hit something at the bottom of your post...

When I say my character isn't intimidated by your Orc, what I mean is that my character doesn't agree to do what your Orc is trying to get me to do by trying to intimidate me. I think 90% of the arguing on this thread has been caused by people using different definitions of intimidate. I'm getting the idea now that when you say it, you mean the Orc's presence causes me to have an involuntary visceral reaction. When I say it, it means his attempt to intimidate me has had the result desired by the Orc. I have agreed to do as he wishes, because I fear what he will do to me if I don't. My position throughout this thread is that the dice can't make that decision for my PC.

Now you get what I;m saying (and you said it better). Intimidate in my game isn't a gurantee to get someone to do something... it just means you 'scared' them... aka Orc's presence causes me to have an involuntary visceral reaction. You then decide what that means.


So lets say I have 2 NPCs, a big scary orc and an almost as big smart hobgoblin... both have +7 intimidate checks... early in the adventure the orc tries and rolls a 3 on an intimidate check... that's a 10 not exactly a laughing matter but most adventurers aren't shaking in there boots. Later in the night the hobgoblin rolls a 19... that's 26 very intimidating, the PCs don't need to think anything of either, but there body has an involuntary visceral reaction to the hobgoblin in the way it doesn't to the orc...

 

[sunshadow21]

When I say my character isn't intimidated by your Orc, what I mean is that my character doesn't agree to do what your Orc is trying to get me to do by trying to intimidate me. I think 90% of the arguing on this thread has been caused by people using different definitions of intimidate. I'm getting the idea now that when you say it, you mean the Orc's presence causes me to have an involuntary visceral reaction. When I say it, it means his attempt to intimidate me has had the result desired by the Orc. I have agreed to do as he wishes, because I fear what he will do to me if I don't. My position throughout this thread is that the dice can't make that decision for my PC.

That sums up the biggest difficulty in this thread quite well. No one thinks the dice can force the PC to act a certain way; the differences lie in what constitutes appropriate influence.

Your position, and the position of several others, seems to be that the dice cannot have any direct influence whatsoever without crossing the line of player agency, and therefore, it is not worth the effort of rolling them to attempt to gain any kind of influence, which must come only from roleplaying. It's fair, but can come across as odd and arbitrary if the person making the argument agrees to letting class abilities and magic that have the same effect work while disallowing the skills simply becuase the source is different. To me, if you're going to draw that line, you need to draw that line with everything that could potentially limit player agency in that manner. Highlighting only magic or only interaction skills or only class abilities simply because of the source seems like cherry picking to me, and a cause of more trouble than resolution. The idea that the interaction skills are less well defined as some merit, but that also means that DMs are free to choose a definition that is in line with other skills, and there is no particular reason to assume that undefined must mean overly powerful. Choosing to default to overly powerful is entirely on the DM, and I have no sympathy for a DM that defaults to overly powerful and than can't reacts to that decision by deciding it's too powerful, and therefore, cannot be used; all that is needed to make it work is a change in a definition that the DM has full and complete control over.

The counter position is that dice can have some kind of influence without being particularly restrictive. Using intimidate to make a PC somewhat afraid and wary of an NPC guard is a good example; the PC can still act however they wish, even if it is clearly against what the guard is suggesting, but a successful intimidate roll means that the PC does so knowing full well there will be consequences. This is where the intimidiate roll ends; the PC, and any other PCs present, can, and often do shape just how much that really matters. If the PC was rash, went off on their own, and gave the guard good reason to be extremely intimidating, it's going to matter a lot more than if the full party is there, and the worst that happens is that another PC ends up dragging the intimidated PC away before they can get in further trouble while the face of the party calms the guard down and gets what the party needs from him. A single dice roll has just as much, or as little impact, as the PCs let it. If they setup a scene that relies on a single dice roll, it's on them, but they will almost always have enough control over their own actions to prevent that if they want to.

In the end, I find that the power of these skills is precisely what the DM decides it should be, so a DM complaining about these skills being too powerful to use on PCs seems really odd to me, as it is entirely within their power to adjust the power of the skills to something more appropriate. I'm not going to say a DM that makes that complaint is wrong, but I am scratching my head why so many DMs seem to spend so much energy trying to fight these skills when it's so much easier to simply drop them entirely or reshape them once to something more usable and moving on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The big issue that comes up frequently is when a conflict arises between multiple PCs, whatever the reason may be or how large it may be. 90% of what I impose as a DM over PCs via NPCs is usually because one stubborn player doesn't want to go along with the rest of the party, and as they argue, I lose the attention of most of the rest of the players. Having a particularly notable NPC and basically force resolution is often the only in game solution I have to keep the game moving along.

I guess that's one approach to the 'cat herding' aspect of DMing.

You have had far better experience in that arena than I have if you believe that.

That's possible. I mostly run games, particularly introductory 5e games for new players. I've been on the player side of the 5e screen only a few times, each of those with an excellent DM.

"Good enough" in terms of both DM and player is difficult if the only time the people see each other is at the game and different people have experience at different tables.

As far as 5e is concerned, IMHO, 'good enough' is just on the DM side. Your players can be inexperienced or casual or troublesome - anything short of actively malicious, really - you have the tools to keep the game flowing and fun for all, regardless.

My own current campaign is a shining example of this. I am a decent, but far from great, DM. I am in a group that rotates DM duties, and most of the other DMs and players know each other quite well, playing together elsewhere; I am very much one of the outsiders of the group. My campaign almost didn't get past the first encounter of getting the party together because, no matter how much I tried to tell them I did not run the same style of game that the usual DMs did, they still brought all of their normal expectations to the table. I was able to get through it because this was a 3.5 game, and the rules carried us long enough for a common ground to be found. With 5E, it would have died immediately, and it probably never would have even been attempted in the first place, because I knew that I would be fighting a lot of built in expectations no matter what I did, far more than my current skill as a DM could easily bridge in the critical first couple of sessions.

I'm not sure I followed that example. I take it this group had played a lot of 3.5, and their expectations were colored by that?

Hence why I argue that "good enough" is difficult enough to pull off in 5E to the point that it basically doesn't happen.

Obviously, it does happen, since there are a lot of us running it. I'll take your point as far as there's a certain minimum that 5e requires from it's DMs, just to make the game functional, and that's fair, but the idea has always been that the DM would be more experienced and knowledgeable about the game than his players.

A patient pick up group, which the group above basically is, or a group of good friends will reach there after two or three false starts (this is the fourth attempt at a 3.5 based game in this group I know of, and only one other that I have been there for has gotten past the first month's worth of sessions), but most groups, especially ones with newer players, don't have that kind of patience. It's usually hook them or lose them in the period of one or two sessions. Not a lot of time for a "good enough" DM to work with.

On the contrary, IMX, an experienced DM can deliver a delightful first play experience with 5e, in just a few hours.

I would argue that the examples of play and the way the PHB is written to be player centric is because 1) it's the player's handbook, so being focused towards players is expected; and b) those examples/rules are also introducing the concepts of an RPG, and how RPGs differ from, say, a boardgame where you only have strictly limited and enumerated choices.

Meh. Games, board or RPG, are still games, they're not as rarefied as all that.

In that light, it's perfectly reasonable for those passages to read exactly the way they do and yet not be intended as iron-clad assumptions that players can never be told what their characters feel.

I wouldn't take the resolution system as implying that. Quite the opposite, the DM narrates the results of players' declared actions, that could very will include those sorts of things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Meh. Games, board or RPG, are still games, they're not as rarefied as all that.

Huh? Rarefied as all what? I didn't think I had elevated RPGs in any way, nor games in particular. I don't follow your response here -- it seems like handwavey dismissal.

I wouldn't take the resolution system as implying that. Quite the opposite, the DM narrates the results of players' declared actions, that could very will include those sorts of things.

Just to be clear, you're fine with a situation where the player declares he's going to try to talk to the orc, and the DM narrating that the orc snarls at being approached and roars his displeasure (rolls some dice) and says that the player's character is intimidated by the orc? (The clear implication being that the orc doesn't want to be talked to, and going away resolves the issue for the orc.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just to be clear, you're fine with a situation where the player declares he's going to try to talk to the orc, and the DM narrating that the orc snarls at being approached and roars his displeasure (rolls some dice) and says that the player's character is intimidated by the orc? (The clear implication being that the orc doesn't want to be talked to, and going away resolves the issue for the orc.)

Yep. "You're intimidated" may not be the most evocative narration, but well within a 5e DM's purview.