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

[GMforPowergamers]

Mostly action heroes: John Maclean, Rambo, and the like.

It's been a while since I have seen die hard, so I will assume you are right with Maclean never having to overxome fear... but the entire 1st story of Rambo (only book and 1st movie) is about him being intimidated and going on a crazy rampage because of it...

 

[sunshadow21]

But most people feel that if you feel scared and don't let it show that you are NOT intimidated.

The key part, and this is where the two sides differ, is the response. Some feel that a successful roll means that the preferred action of the one who triggered the roll is automatically done because the roll forces that action; others don't. It comes down to play style and how the DM utilizes skill checks; a DM that chooses to generally use skill checks specifically as a means to resolve individual actions can very logically arrive at the forced action view. Those who prefer to see skill checks as part of a greater scene are a lot less likely to require such firm conclusions. Those people tend to run skills more like skill challenges, where the individual rolls matter, but no one single roll is likely to have that level of influence in the vast majority of common circumstances. The quoted sentence makes perfect sense for campaigns that emphasize single rolls to resolve very discrete questions; the practical outcome of the dice roll in those games is that you are or are not intimidated. In games where it is used more often in the skill challenge like setting, there are enough shades of gray to every dice roll to allow for someone to be intimidated without automatically being forced to the extreme position of automatic compliance to a specific request.

In the end, the amount of gray area in the campaign in general, and where it can be found, is going to influence how any group decides to perceive this issue. In Iserith's campaign, I get the distinct impression that, at least when it comes to dice, there is no gray; all the gray happens on the roleplay side; I can very much understand his specific point within that greater context, even if that greater context is not how I approach the game. In the campaigns I've been in, there's been enough gray on enough dice rolls that such an extreme position on this issue is not usually required. Neither approach is right or wrong; they both work for their respective groups, but it can be a pretty large gap between the two should the two sides ever meet.

 

[robus]

I'm going to ask this because it's been on my mind for a while, and I'm genuinely curious...

When you say "being intimidated", do you mean "feeling intimidated" as in the feeling of fear you get, or do you intend it as shorthand for "somebody is trying to scare you"? For example, in this quote, I have the impression you're using the expression as a shorthand, because being yelled at would be the stimulus, and fear would be the response.

I'm asking because when I read your posts, they sometimes can be interpreted both ways. I believe that if we were to clear this up, it would bring some much needed understanding.

I tried this approach a few pages ago but it went nowhere. The PC is intimidated, apparently, but that's not taking agency away from the player because despite it being a response it's actually a stimulus. I think we just have to agree that words mean different things to different people. The way this "debate" has been going in circles can have no other explanation. As iserith says there's nothing wrong with this (I've even seen Matt Mercer do it on Critical Role) but the fact that it's vehemently denied is a puzzle.

 

[robus]

The cold breeze and the young maid's appearance are the stimuli. You take things a step too far for my liking.

Agreed. For example are all the PCs dressed identically. Are all equally sensitive to the cool? Are all the PCs equally attracted to the maid?

The environment is cold. The maid is attractive. How PCs respond to that is up to the players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I tried this approach a few pages ago but it went nowhere. The PC is intimidated, apparently, but that's not taking agency away from the player because despite it being a response it's actually a stimulus. I think we just have to agree that words mean different things to different people. The way this "debate" has been going in circles can have no other explanation. As iserith says there's nothing wrong with this (I've even seen Matt Mercer do it on Critical Role) but the fact that it's vehemently denied is a puzzle.

I kinda see where GM is going, and see why he doesn't agree with Iserth's framing of the argument because Iserth is really just looking for a way to show that he was right all along.

The way I run it, if the Orc successfully intimidates, the character is afraid. I tell the player, in various forms of stage dressing, that his character is afraid of the orc. So, in that sense, it's a response. However, that input is a stimulus to the player, who then decides how his character reacts to the fear -- swallowing it, because they'll be damned if they'll let an orc see them afraid; popping off because they react to fear in a violent and negative manner; acquiescing because they decide the scary orc should be left alone; whatever. I see this as not restricting player agency because no course of action is taken away from the player -- he/she still makes the choice as to what their character does. But it puts the characters in their proper place (as I see it) as part of a game world that acts on them as they act on it.

To me, it's perfectly fine to have the character be influenced in any number of ways. It's the player's job to take that stimulus (if you will) and choose a response. GM may or may not agree with this, but it seems consistent.

 

[robus]

I kinda see where GM is going, and see why he doesn't agree with Iserth's framing of the argument because Iserth is really just looking for a way to show that he was right all along.

The way I run it, if the Orc successfully intimidates, the character is afraid. I tell the player, in various forms of stage dressing, that his character is afraid of the orc. So, in that sense, it's a response. However, that input is a stimulus to the player, who then decides how his character reacts to the fear -- swallowing it, because they'll be damned if they'll let an orc see them afraid; popping off because they react to fear in a violent and negative manner; acquiescing because they decide the scary orc should be left alone; whatever. I see this as not restricting player agency because no course of action is taken away from the player -- he/she still makes the choice as to what their character does. But it puts the characters in their proper place (as I see it) as part of a game world that acts on them as they act on it.

To me, it's perfectly fine to have the character be influenced in any number of ways. It's the player's job to take that stimulus (if you will) and choose a response. GM may or may not agree with this, but it seems consistent.

Yep, it's really a matter of where the line is drawn. Iserith, and others, draw the line at describing the intimidating orc, others (yourself included I think) draw it later. The problem lies in what the meaning of "intimidated" is. To iserith, and others, it prescribes the possible set of responses thus limiting player responses in a negative manner. But, apparently, that's not necessarily the case if you interpret "intimidated" differently. And I think that is probably where this should be left.

We agree to disagree

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

TLDR: I don't mind deception against PCs, but Persuade and Intimidate I do mind. IMO, Persuade is for making deals, not making friends. If you agree to a "persuasion contest" with an NPC, and you lose, too bad, pay up. But you can choose not to deal with the silver-tongued shopkeeper.

Intimidate is almost always a terribly-designed skill. I think it can make a PC scared, but if a PC decides to foolishly attack someone beyond their ability, that's their own business. PCs have the right to act as they wish, they just need to accept the consequences.

 

[Falterion]

I like these spins on the outcomes. Good descriptions too. Nice Job

 

[Falterion]

I think this approach is really important. I am trying to get my players to act more out and describe their actions. I want them to give me a description of their attack or intentions. If I find it good roleplaying or a good idea I will award inspiration.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

A question for those who feel that intimidation is removing agency: What does it mean to be proficient in Intimidation? What is the purpose of the game mechanic? Why would a player choose it for their character?