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

[sunshadow21]

Pathfinder is what I know, therefore it is what I run as a DM. 3.5/Pathfinder also happens to be what most people I play with want to play. I would love eventually learn other non-DnD systems, but for now, it's what I have. When I do learn a new system to Dm, it's not going to 5e; I already have enough DnD variants on my bookshelf.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Pathfinder is what I know, therefore it is what I run as a DM. 3.5/Pathfinder also happens to be what most people I play with want to play. I would love eventually learn other non-DnD systems, but for now, it's what I have. When I do learn a new system to Dm, it's not going to 5e; I already have enough DnD variants on my bookshelf.

then why hang out on the 5e board talking about 5e if not only do you not now pay/run it but you have no plans to play/run it and you don't even want to know how to run/play it...

It would be like me going to an automotive board, explaining I bearly know more then 'put gas in, turn key, make car go' and expecting to have a meaningful conversation....

 

[sunshadow21]

I never said I wouldn't play it, just that I'll probably never personally DM it. I can easily play it with just the PDF and/or a single book investment, and I can, with the right group, enjoy it. How I DM other systems does influence the type of things I look for in other DMs, so watching and participating in the 5E forums on the more overarching topics is something I enjoy and can make small contributions to, even without being a massively boisterous supporter of the system. DMing is where the resource cost is more than I am willing to shell out; the raw cost of a few extra books may not be huge by itself, but when my budget is limited and there are other options out there that more than another variant of the D&D mold, that is where any money spent on the DM side is going to go, not 5E or even at this point Pathfinder or any other D&D variant. I will use the stuff I already have to DM while looking for other systems to play in, but DMing in those other systems without notable experience on the player side is not going to happen any time soon.

You act as if 5E is somehow hugely different from earlier editions, and in implementation, it is, but a lot of the basic concerns raised in this thrad apply to all versions of the D&D family to some degree. The differences between mundane interactions and magic, as well as the role of the DM are by no means new and it helps me as a DM, regardless of which system I use, to see how those have evolved in the latest edition.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You act as if 5E is somehow hugely different from earlier editions, and in implementation, it is, but a lot of the basic concerns raised in this thrad apply to all versions of the D&D family to some degree. The differences between mundane interactions and magic, as well as the role of the DM are by no means new and it helps me as a DM, regardless of which system I use, to see how those have evolved in the latest edition.

How to handle interactions in a way that's character-ability-based, without taking agency away from the player is applicable in just about any system, really, PF no less than other forms of D&D, so sure, weigh in on that. But you really did sound like you were getting commissions on PF sales there for a minute.

 

[sunshadow21]

How to handle interactions in a way that's character-ability-based, without taking agency away from the player is applicable in just about any system, really, PF no less than other forms of D&D, so sure, weigh in on that. But you really did sound like you were getting commissions on PF sales there for a minute.

It wasn't intentional, I assure you. I haven't bought any new roleplaying books at all for at least a year now, save for a couple of Star Wars Saga books, which is still WotC. I mostly use Paizo and earlier WotC products because those were the systems I was playing when I was still buying books. And when it comes to forums in general, I tend to avoid specfic rules questions unless they directly tie into larger issues like the ones being discussed on this thread, and here I have tried to focus on the role of the skills in question as they pertain to the greater picture.

And on issues like this, I find that system really has only as much impact as the DM and group lets it. The system itself is really but a very small part of the conversation. I could use Pathfinder specfic examples but they wouldn't be noticeably different from the 5E examples that have been used; different names for the specific skills, that's about it. Pathfinder may have slightly different base assumptions than 5E, but not all that much. Nothing in Pathfinder states that the player can declare rolls or cannot declare rolls, and at least that I am aware of, nothing in 5E states that players can't declare specific actions for rolls. 5E may heavily favor the position that they don't but it never states it outright that they can't, and Pathfinder, like most of D&D actually, is largely neutral on the subject. Pathfinder's community has very clearly chosen a preferred method, but the rules really don't care one way or another. For me personally, the general tone of how I run my game would not be changed in 5E; skills and narrative would still have more or less equal value regardless of which variant of D&D I was using; 5E may well, by the interprations I've seen on this thread at least, not favor it, but I have seen plenty of room in how 5E is interpreted for my preferences to be equally as valid, and many players that don't like PF also don't like 5E because of perceived DM control issues, so putting together a full group would likely not be an issue. That, to me, is as far as system specfic concerns go.

 

[robus]

I was trying to talk myself into the possibility that the intimidation check could be a contest of wills initiated by the NPC but when I role-played it in my head it still came out with the PC declaring the action as follows:

DM as the Guard: "Don't do something you might regret." The guard does not want to let you pass. He bares his teeth, snarls and puts his hand on his sword.

Possible PC actions in response.

1) "I guess we'll try another way" - i.e. the PCs fail to get past the guard - no roll needed.

2) "Whatever, we're going through anyway." - the action fails because there was no attempt to deal with the intimidation. Roll initiative because there's going to be a fight.

3) I look the guard square in the eye, flex my muscles, and say "Perhaps you'll be the one with regrets?" - DM decides there's now an Intimidation contest and dice are rolled to see who's the most intimidating.

 

[sunshadow21]

I was trying to talk myself into the possibility that the intimidation check could be a contest of wills initiated by the NPC but when I role-played it in my head it still came out with the PC declaring the action as follows:

DM as the Guard: "Don't do something you might regret." The guard does not want to let you pass. He bares his teeth, snarls and puts his hand on his sword.

Possible PC actions in response.

1) "I guess we'll try another way" - i.e. the PCs fail to get past the guard - no roll needed.

2) "Whatever, we're going through anyway." - the action fails because there was no attempt to deal with the intimidation. Roll initiative because there's going to be a fight.

3) I look the guard square in the eye, flex my muscles, and say "Perhaps you'll be the one with regrets?" - DM decides there's now an Intimidation contest and dice are rolled to see who's the most intimidating.

The difference between you and me is that I would be just as likely to grant the guard an intimidate check as the PC would be to counter it with their own intimidate check; NPC status vs PC status would have no impact at all on how I let it play out. That would be up the circumstances of the scene. Sometimes the guard would simply be repeating a phrase oft said to most passerbys and the PC happens to be the civilian passing by at that moment; in that case, no roll because it's not really a specfic action, just an indication that the guard is aware of the situation. Others would have specific reasons to specifically roll intimidate; in those cases, a roll is not only appropriate, but clearly marks the action as significant. Likewise, on the PC side, if the guard is trying to break up a bar room brawl and telling the PC to back down, the PC has little reason to counter with an intimidate (unless they are drunk or something like that), but if the party needs to specifically get past the guard, the PC would have very good reason to turn it into a contest of wills or possibly even combat. If a PC were to try to intimidate a random guard on patrol or at a random gate, the question would be how hard does the guard laugh, not how intimidated they are.

 

[Hriston]

I think it's been established now what likely should have been obvious early on in this thread, which is that it's possible to use Charisma checks in different ways which make them more or less appropriate for use against PCs.
[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], and perhaps several others, seems to call for a Charisma check when it's uncertain "how well" a particular character is using that ability. I hope that's a fair characterization. A successful Charisma check, in this view, tells the players how impressive a character seems, even to the point of having the effect of producing an involuntary physical response in the PC. What the PC then does with that information is up to the player, but the implication is that it is to be used to inform roleplay, and that to ignore it is considered bad form or unfair play.

My own practice, on the other hand, is to call for a Charisma check when it's uncertain if a character will achieve his or her goals in a social interaction. The die roll in this case determines whether an NPC the character is trying to influence will agree to help the character in some way.

Needless to say, these two approaches are quite different and have different implications for their use in the game. For me, my approach precludes the use of a Charisma check directly against a PC because, if successful, that would be the DM telling the player what decision his or her PC makes. Conversely, if I was playing a PC at [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] table, I would have no problem with the DM making a random determination about how impressive an NPC seems at the moment. I do this sort of thing all the time when I DM, usually by rolling to determine an NPC's Starting Attitude, which is not quite the same thing, but falls into the general category of the DM using the dice to inform his or her description of the world.

What I would take exception to, however, is if that description includes my PC having a reaction, whether it be physical or mental, that determines, or even influences, the resulting course of my roleplaying. I also dislike penalties and social pressure designed to ensure what others call "good roleplaying".

I am curious, however, when it comes to the issue of Intimidation, specifically the way [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] uses the skill, where a successful check results in a PC having an involuntary physical reaction. The first question I have is what sets the DC for my character to feel thus physically intimidated? Secondly, is there a similar involuntary physical reaction that happens as a result of a successful Charisma (Persuasion) check or Charisma (Deception) check?

see in game and out of game is different here, I don't have to hit you with an arrow, my character hits your character with an arrow...

That's why the attack roll vs. AC is a simulation of a fictional combat. We each determine what our characters do through roleplay, but to resolve the attacks and other actions we take in a way that's fair, we need to look to an impartial action resolution mechanism, unless there's some circumstance that would enable the DM to determine auto-success or failure. I think we're in agreement about this.

well I've never seen that exact scenero (because normally when 1 PC wont join the quest of the game our answer is "Ok, do you not want to play tonight?" or "OK, now draw up a different character...one that WILL play tonight") it really is the same as the arrow above... I don't have to convince my NPC does... so we need to test HOW WELL he does at convincing...

So now we're talking about running a simulation of a conversation where an NPC is trying to convince a PC to go on a quest. I'm assuming you call for a Charisma (Persuasion) check to find out "how well" the NPC does at persuading the PC, but what does it mean if s/he does a good job? Do you simply describe the NPC as eloquently making a very convincing argument and let the player decide how the PC responds? Do you tell the player that his or her PC actually feels persuaded with the implication that making some other decision is ignoring an in-game stimulus? Or is the PC actually convinced to go on the quest no matter what the player decides? And finally, how do you set a DC for any of this?

I'm lost here... are you saying now you have no issue with rolling intimidate?

My issue with using Charisma checks against PCs is when they work the way I run them. I have no problem with using the dice to randomly determine something in the game-world which is then described to the players. The way you've described it, you roll Charisma for the Orc and tell the players the result as a shorthand for how impressive the Orc appears. As I said, you could just as well make this information up if you had a specific scene in mind, but I have no problem with you using a random roll to do that.

The other thing you've described using the roll for is to see if the PC has a strong feeling of intimidation, and that this feeling must be acknowledged by the player, i.e. the PC is expected to act like s/he has this feeling or risk the displeasure of the DM or the group. I do have a problem with this use of a Charisma check because it treads too close to telling me how to play my PC.

so in this scenero who has to make an argument?

Anyone who doesn't want to play their character as intimidated.

strawman... no one ever said "Into agreeing to do X" find me any quote of that... Intimadation is how scary you are. It is a trait in the world it is still up to the PC how he reacts... YOU and other posters who don't like it keep pretending I take away control...no matter how many times I explain it.

I've said it because that's how I do it. When a character in one of my games attempts to influence an NPC through social interaction, I may call for a Charisma check. If the roll hits the DC I set for the character's influence to have the desired effect, I effectively take control away from the NPC and have the NPC agree to give in to the request. I don't expect the players of PCs to submit to the results of such rolls, nor would I want them to. I have enough to do as DM without playing the players' characters for them.

Try this before you or anyone else responds think about this... if there is some way that you can interpret what I am saying into 'takeing away player free choice' you are reading what I am saying wrong.

I'm still not clear on how telling a player that his PC is afraid of an Orc isn't taking away some of the player's control over how his or her character feels, but I think most of the accusations you are responding to here are the result in the different expectations people are bringing to this thread about how Charisma checks are used and what the result of a successful check should be.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

[MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION], and perhaps several others, seems to call for a Charisma check when it's uncertain "how well" a particular character is using that ability. I hope that's a fair characterization. A successful Charisma check, in this view, tells the players how impressive a character seems, even to the point of having the effect of producing an involuntary physical response in the PC. What the PC then does with that information is up to the player, but the implication is that it is to be used to inform roleplay, and that to ignore it is considered bad form or unfair play.

My own practice, on the other hand, is to call for a Charisma check when it's uncertain if a character will achieve his or her goals in a social interaction. The die roll in this case determines whether an NPC the character is trying to influence will agree to help the character in some way.

Needless to say, these two approaches are quite different and have different implications for their use in the game. For me, my approach precludes the use of a Charisma check directly against a PC because, if successful, that would be the DM telling the player what decision his or her PC makes. Conversely, if I was playing a PC at [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] table, I would have no problem with the DM making a random determination about how impressive an NPC seems at the moment. I do this sort of thing all the time when I DM, usually by rolling to determine an NPC's Starting Attitude, which is not quite the same thing, but falls into the general category of the DM using the dice to inform his or her description of the world.

What I would take exception to, however, is if that description includes my PC having a reaction, whether it be physical or mental, that determines, or even influences, the resulting course of my roleplaying. I also dislike penalties and social pressure designed to ensure what others call "good roleplaying".

It's at least close enough if not exact...

I am curious, however, when it comes to the issue of Intimidation, specifically the way [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] uses the skill, where a successful check results in a PC having an involuntary physical reaction. The first question I have is what sets the DC for my character to feel thus physically intimidated? Secondly, is there a similar involuntary physical reaction that happens as a result of a successful Charisma (Persuasion) check or Charisma (Deception) check?

and the answer is it depends...

I don't run a lot of very social NPCs, but when I do Deception is pretty much only used as opposed to insight... and then only when we need to...

example when it might matter... I have a shape shifter look like PC A... PCA and shape shifter fight and roll around. PC B runs in and says "Now what do I do" so my shape shifter looks up and says "Shoot us both it's the only way..."

so now PC B has no idea what his character would do. On one hand the going theory is the 'good' guy would say that, but would PC A... and to confound the situation more, the player KNOWs it came out of the DMs mouth... so they can no longer be impartial...

now that never actually happened in my game (it comes from a 90's x-men cartoon) but I think all my PCs would be pretty on board with insight vs deception there...

That's why the attack roll vs. AC is a simulation of a fictional combat. We each determine what our characters do through roleplay, but to resolve the attacks and other actions we take in a way that's fair, we need to look to an impartial action resolution mechanism, unless there's some circumstance that would enable the DM to determine auto-success or failure. I think we're in agreement about this.

pretty much...

So now we're talking about running a simulation of a conversation where an NPC is trying to convince a PC to go on a quest. I'm assuming you call for a Charisma (Persuasion) check to find out "how well" the NPC does at persuading the PC,

can't say I ever remember it coming up... if my NPC is giving a quest it is almost 100% just assumed the PC will take it... so I have 0 experience with this...

but what does it mean if s/he does a good job? Do you simply describe the NPC as eloquently making a very convincing argument and let the player decide how the PC responds? Do you tell the player that his or her PC actually feels persuaded with the implication that making some other decision is ignoring an in-game stimulus? Or is the PC actually convinced to go on the quest no matter what the player decides? And finally, how do you set a DC for any of this?

I again wouldn't roll... I'ld just explain "Hey out of game I have this mod the sunless citadel I'm running tonight, if you don't find a reason to say yes, then you can't play"

just replace the mod name with what ever the adventure is...

Anyone who doesn't want to play their character as intimidated.

That is what I don't understand... why? It feels to me like "I don't want toplay my character as wet, so when you say it's raining that's unfair" I can't understand why someone would say "I don't want to play out my characters reaction to X stimuli...

I've said it because that's how I do it. When a character in one of my games attempts to influence an NPC through social interaction, I may call for a Charisma check. If the roll hits the DC I set for the character's influence to have the desired effect, I effectively take control away from the NPC and have the NPC agree to give in to the request. I don't expect the players of PCs to submit to the results of such rolls, nor would I want them to. I have enough to do as DM without playing the players' characters for them.

as I said no PC knows ahead of time what a reaction will be... intimidate, persuasion, Diplomacy Bluff are all grades of 'how well do I do X" but none are ever mind control...

I'm still not clear on how telling a player that his PC is afraid of an Orc isn't taking away some of the player's control over how his or her character feels, but I think most of the accusations you are responding to here are the result in the different expectations people are bringing to this thread about how Charisma checks are used and what the result of a successful check should be.

I think so too

 

[Tony Vargas]

And on issues like this, I find that system really has only as much impact as the DM and group lets it. The system itself is really but a very small part of the conversation.

And it's not like there's a big difference among the editions where it applies - that, is the modern versions of D&D, since classic D&D had reaction mods for CHA and little else when it came to resolving interactions - all include interaction skills like Diplomacy or Intimidate or others under various names, all roll d20 vs a DC to resolve those skill checks. (Technically, 5e calls them CHA checks and applies a proficiency bonus, but it's a distinction without a difference.)

Aside from attitude, how varied bonuses are with level & training, and how resolution was presented (3e a single check at +1/rank of training vs a static DC, 4e +1/2 level, +5 training vs scaling DCs & skill challenges, and 5e has Bounded Accuracy +2-6 with training x2 expertise & the already-discussed player-initiated/DM-narrated DM-empowering approach), they might as well be the same system. Indeed, they're all d20 games.

For me personally, the general tone of how I run my game would not be changed in 5E; skills and narrative would still have more or less equal value regardless of which variant of D&D I was using; 5E may well, by the interprations I've seen on this thread at least, not favor it, but I have seen plenty of room in how 5E is interpreted for my preferences to be equally as valid.

One thing 5e did try to do was support more playstyles, yes. The DM is free to always call for checks, for instance, keeping the flow of play closer to that familiar from 3.5, or he can rarely do so, adopting a more narrative style.