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

[iserith]

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?

To be clear, the skill Intimidation doesn't remove agency - the DM can, however, depending on his or her approach to adjudication.

The reason a player might choose this skill for his or her character is to have a bonus to ability checks called for by the DM when the player's stated goal of influencing someone via the approach of overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence has an uncertain outcome. If this is a goal and approach the player intend to use frequently, having a bonus to the ability check will probably benefit that player. Some players might also choose it because it represents some defining aspect of the character.

 

[Hriston]

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?

That's actually three questions.

Before I answer, I want to clarify something. This isn't about Intimidation. This is about calling for a Charisma check to resolve a creature's attempt to influence a PC through social interaction. It doesn't matter whether the creature's attempt relies on Intimidation, Persuasion, or Deception. Rolling the dice to answer the question "Is the PC influenced?" removes player agency over a decision the PC is making voluntarily.

Now to answer your questions:

1. Being proficient in Intimidation means that you are good at influencing people by relying on frightening or menacing behavior.

2. The purpose of Intimidation as a game mechanic is to simulate the increased chance of successfully influencing someone that such proficiency would give you.

3. A player would choose for his or her character to be proficient in Intimidation to increase that character's chance of success in the game's social pillar when the character uses the tactic of engaging in frightening or menacing behavior.

 

[Hriston]

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

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.

That's a perfectly valid definition of intimidate, i.e. to frighten or overawe (someone), but usually the word has the additional meaning of doing this in order to make someone do what you want. This suggests the question I asked you earlier. Why does the Orc want to scare me? What does s/he hope to achieve? Just to be scary seems like a strange motivation, even for a monster, so there must be something the Orc wants in being scary. If so, how do we measure whether s/he is successful?

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...

Something I'm curious about is what about the PCs tells you that a 26 frightens them, whereas a 10 doesn't. In other words, if the Orc and the Hobgoblin both have the same goal of frightening the PCs, how do you measure the success of their rolls?

 

[karolusb]

The section on ability checks does specifically refer to their use with both characters and monsters.

However, when the Basic Rules are taken as a whole, one must take into account this very important section (page 66) in my view:

"Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks."

So if the orc tries to grapple a PC, it might be time for a Strength (Athletics) check. When the githzerai monk tries to back-flip to the high ground for follow-up attack with advantage, a Dexterity check might be good here to resolve any uncertainty. If the ogre tries to intimidate the cowardly goblins into charging the PCs who just routed them, a Charisma (Intimidation) check might be a good choice.

But when it comes to deceiving, intimidating, or persuading a character, I have to take into consideration that part from page 66. And since the player determines with certainty how a character thinks, acts, and talks, it's up to the player to say how the character responds to my description of the deception, intimidation, or persuasion.

"The orc intimidates you."
"page 66 says that neither adrenaline not brain chemistry can effect my character's actions. . ."

"You have been magically frightened."
"I don't choose to act frightened."
"But it's magical."
"Page 66 says nothing about only applying to non-magical applications. . ."

"The orc grappled you."
"I walk away."
"You are grappled."
"I determine how I act, and my act is walking away. . ."

"You have been affected by charm person."
"I attack the spellcaster."
"You consider them to be a friendly acquaintance."
"And I would kill a friendly acquaintance who cast charm person on me ;-)" (Wow is it me or should charm person include the charmed condition?)

"Walking all day through the rain makes you feel exhausted."
"You're not my real GM, you can't tell me how I feel!"

"What do I see when I open the door."
"Our perceptions are a product of our minds. Therefore it would be against the rules for me to describe what you see. . ."

(Intentional absurdity is intentional, of course absurdity is a product of our minds. . .)

At best you are deciding between conflicting rules (and since you always mention the magic exemption it seems you assume that magic takes precedence over page 66), at worst you seem to be ignoring them as much as the worst straw men in the argument.

This thread makes me realize how incredibly bad the absolute autonomy and moral superiority argument sounds.

I don't think I have ever used persuasion against a player. And there is certainly room for such things to get skeevy (I also would disallow pvp uses of persuation). This is not in line with any understanding of the rules, merely with my own experience (again, you have to go back pretty far for the last time a PC tried to social another pc in my history). I might say someone comes across as convincing, but that would be as far as it goes.

If someone fails an insight check I would almost always say "seems legit" (seriously, exactly 'seems legit', maybe there is something wrong with me). Of course assuming I am allowed by rule 66 to describe perceptions, that shouldn't be cheating, then again it seems likely that I would likely be in a model where "seems legit" was isomorphic to "you believe them", which is cheating, gah.

Intimidate covers something meaningful to me, ignoring a successful intimidate check should have a consequence (otherwise the intimidate skill should not be based on charisma, which has no actual effect on how likely most people are to beat you up). Depending on the nature of the intimidate I would give it some effect (most likely disadvantage on initiative for the fight that starts because you ignored the guys attempt to intimidate you, or perhaps disad on your choice initiative (flight) or first round attacks (fight) depending on how you choose to channel the adrenaline. . .).

Note I don't say a player has to back down (or not kill the guy who told the 'truth'), but there is a consequence to not doing so (actually I have never had a player kill the 'truth' teller, so honestly I am not sure how I would handle it. . .). I would still say you are intimidated (probably in GM rules voice after describing the narrative elements in Character voice).

Nothing in the book says the frightened condition (or the charmed condition for that matter) is a consequence of magic (see barbarian Intimidating Presence for a specific example that it isn't). And since the GM determines what conditions affect a character (well assuming that's true. . .), determining that the result of a particular intimidate check is the frightened condition is well within the guidelines of the game.

 

[iserith]

"The orc intimidates you."
"page 66 says that neither adrenaline not brain chemistry can effect my character's actions. . ."

Since "brain chemistry" can be used to explain lots of things, I wonder why you don't use this for NPCs trying to persuade PCs.

"You have been magically frightened."
"I don't choose to act frightened."
"But it's magical."
"Page 66 says nothing about only applying to non-magical applications. . ."

A player with a character under the frightened condition is free to act as he or she pleases in my view. However, trying to move closer to the source of the condition fails and attack rolls and ability checks are at disadvantage. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

"The orc grappled you."
"I walk away."

"You fail to walk away because the orc has a hold on you. Would you like to use your action to try and break free?"

"You have been affected by charm person."
"I attack the spellcaster."

"You fail to attack the spellcaster, the magic of the spell compelling you to consider the caster a friendly acquaintance which does not allow for attacks against her."

"Walking all day through the rain makes you feel exhausted."

"After walking all day through the rain, you suffer the effects of exhaustion. You now have disadvantage on any ability checks."

"What do I see when I open the door."

The DM describes the environment.

I don't think I have ever used persuasion against a player. And there is certainly room for such things to get skeevy (I also would disallow pvp uses of persuation). This is not in line with any understanding of the rules, merely with my own experience (again, you have to go back pretty far for the last time a PC tried to social another pc in my history). I might say someone comes across as convincing, but that would be as far as it goes.

You're essentially establishing that any attempt to persuade a PC has no uncertain outcome and thus there is no ability check. I say the same for attempts to deceive and intimidate.

If someone fails an insight check I would almost always say "seems legit" (seriously, exactly 'seems legit', maybe there is something wrong with me). Of course assuming I am allowed by rule 66 to describe perceptions, that shouldn't be cheating, then again it seems likely that I would likely be in a model where "seems legit" was isomorphic to "you believe them", which is cheating, gah.

On a failed insight check, I might say, "You fail to ascertain the NPC's truthfulness based on observing its body language and mannerisms during the interaction." It's still on the player to decide whether the character believes the NPC or not.

Intimidate covers something meaningful to me, ignoring a successful intimidate check should have a consequence (otherwise the intimidate skill should not be based on charisma, which has no actual effect on how likely most people are to beat you up). Depending on the nature of the intimidate I would give it some effect (most likely disadvantage on initiative for the fight that starts because you ignored the guys attempt to intimidate you, or perhaps disad on your choice initiative (flight) or first round attacks (fight) depending on how you choose to channel the adrenaline. . .).

Note I don't say a player has to back down (or not kill the guy who told the 'truth'), but there is a consequence to not doing so (actually I have never had a player kill the 'truth' teller, so honestly I am not sure how I would handle it. . .). I would still say you are intimidated (probably in GM rules voice after describing the narrative elements in Character voice).

I would ask the player to decide how his or her character reacts to the NPC's attempt at intimidation.

Nothing in the book says the frightened condition (or the charmed condition for that matter) is a consequence of magic (see barbarian Intimidating Presence for a specific example that it isn't). And since the GM determines what conditions affect a character (well assuming that's true. . .), determining that the result of a particular intimidate check is the frightened condition is well within the guidelines of the game.

There are, of course, exceptions to general rules which I have already discussed in this thread.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

That's actually three questions.

Yeah, I know. I'm struggling to phrase what I mean.

The concept that bothers me about this discussion is having game mechanics that only work one way. A game mechanic should either work all the time or not be in the game. Having something that works differently for the GM as it does for players seems somehow to be "cheating" to me. I don't like "PC-only rules" and "GM-only rules".

If a player can use a game mechanic for their character to do something (in this case, influencing the behaviour of an NPC through intimidation) then the GM should be able to use the same mechanic (influence the behaviour of a PC through intimidation).

Several posters in this thread have stated that influencing the behaviour of a PC is bad, that it removes player agency. I agree with them, though I wonder what the difference is between an NPC charming a PC and an NPC intimidating a PC?

However, I think that if the GM must respect player agency then the players must respect GM agency. For example, if NPCs are not allowed to intimidate PCs then PCs should not be allowed to intimidate NPCs.

I want a mechanic that allows for coercion in both directions while keeping some amount of agency. Is such a game mechanic possible?

 

[iserith]

Yeah, I know. I'm struggling to phrase what I mean.

The concept that bothers me about this discussion is having game mechanics that only work one way. A game mechanic should either work all the time or not be in the game. Having something that works differently for the GM as it does for players seems somehow to be "cheating" to me. I don't like "PC-only rules" and "GM-only rules".

If a player can use a game mechanic for their character to do something (in this case, influencing the behaviour of an NPC through intimidation) then the GM should be able to use the same mechanic (influence the behaviour of a PC through intimidation).

Several posters in this thread have stated that influencing the behaviour of a PC is bad, that it removes player agency. I agree with them, though I wonder what the difference is between an NPC charming a PC and an NPC intimidating a PC?

However, I think that if the GM must respect player agency then the players must respect GM agency. For example, if NPCs are not allowed to intimidate PCs then PCs should not be allowed to intimidate NPCs.

I want a mechanic that allows for coercion in both directions while keeping some amount of agency. Is such a game mechanic possible?

I think you're making an assumption that a player is using a mechanic to influence NPC behavior. That is not so. A player is stating a fictional goal and an approach for the character. It's the DM who decides if a mechanic comes into play to determine an outcome.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I don't believe roleplay should be used by the DM to gain influence over the PCs either. The players should be left in complete control of their PCs at all times barring an explicit exception in the rules. I certainly don't think social interaction, a full third of the game, constitutes such an exception.

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.

That's not the argument that's been made. Specific rules limit agency in specific ways. Social interactions do not.

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.

I would say that by preserving player agency throughout the social pillar of the game you are creating the space for magical effects and special abilities that can abridge that agency to exist. This makes the rules more varied and interesting.

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.

What sort of trouble do you see arising from preserving player agency in social interaction?

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.

I don't agree that the social skills are ill defined, nor do I think they are too powerful. I think they should be potent to make them worthwhile for the PCs that have invested in them. Proficiency in these skills increases player agency in the social pillar. I believe that is their proper role.

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.

From the point of view of a PC who is proficient in one of these skills, this approach seems too unreliable to make investment worthwhile. A player should have a good idea of what success and failure look like before s/he rolls for a check.

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.

I haven't heard anyone complaining about social skills being too powerful. I think that's a pretty huge misunderstanding of what's being discussed. Personally, I think Charisma checks should be as decisive when called on to resolve a social interaction as other ability checks are in resolving other types of action throughout the game. Far from making them more usable, watering down the potency of Charisma checks would deprive the DM of a valuable tool for adjudication. I certainly don't think that I or others are fighting these skills, but rather that I am using them appropriately and judiciously, as they were meant to be used.

 

[Hriston]

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...

So the PCs never try to gain influence over someone through falsehoods?

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...

By speaking as the shapeshifter, you let the player know that it was the shapeshifter, and not PC A, who said that. Asking the player to keep that meta-game knowledge separate from PC B's decision making will just create dissonance between the experience of the player and his or her character. Rather than calling for a contested check to override the player's ability to use that knowledge, however, you could simply say that it's impossible to tell the two apart as they roll around together, so the player won't be sure whether s/he's shooting the one who spoke or not.

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...

The quest isn't important. The NPC could be trying to convince the PCs of anything.

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"

It's funny you say this, because what I was responding to was you saying that you didn't need to do the convincing, that the NPC needed to do the convincing, and that you would roll to test how well the NPC did at being convincing. Now you're saying you don't call for Charisma (Persuasion) checks from NPCs?

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...

Because you've told me what my character's reaction is. I'm intimidated. I know you see that as a stimulus, but it's also a reaction to whatever made my character feel intimidated. By removing that step whereby my character became intimidated, you have cut me out of the process of determining how my player reacts to things in the game-world.

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...

The way I run it, X is always "gain influence", and it isn't how well you do it, just whether or not you do it well enough. Intimidation, Persuasion, and Deception are just whichever method you employ to get there.

 

[sunshadow21]

From the point of view of a PC who is proficient in one of these skills, this approach seems too unreliable to make investment worthwhile. A player should have a good idea of what success and failure look like before s/he rolls for a check.

This phrase sums up our big differences.

1. You are still thinking a single PC. In an actual game, no smart PC is going to be making a check completely alone. Especially at the levels that competence can be reasonably assumed, they are almost always going to have several very powerful looking friends behind them reinforcing the results of the roll. Most NPCs will not have that advantage, making it harder for NPCs in general to attain the same level of reliability. Social skills in particular really need to be understood in how they effect the party, not just an individual player.

2. You see the roll as a firm resolution. I see the roll as a resolution to one part of the scene while also frequently setting up the next part. It's a completely different function for rolling dice in general, and it leads to two very different playing styles. Given your starting point, your position makes perfect sense, but it would have no logical place in any games I run; the reverse is also true. That is pretty much where this argument leads every time. Different people can use the same basic ruleset in different ways to get a completely different game.