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

[Kalshane]

If you're already willing to tell a player how his or her character thinks (e.g. "they think the person is lying"), then why do you draw the line at telling a player how his or her character thinks when it comes to Intimidation or Persuasion?

Fine. "He appears to be lying." I am describing what the PC is able to perceive, just like I do in response to any other attempt to interact with the game world they make. A Intuition check made to determine whether or not someone is lying works exactly the same way as a Perception check made against someone who is attempting to physically obscure something (be it their identity via Disguise, their slipping something into a pocket via Sleight of Hand or their actual presence via Stealth). Or do you let your players decide whether or not they can see the thief sneaking through the shadows, too?

 

[Uchawi]

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."

That is how I would handle it. But I would leave it at appears to be trustworthy.

 

[Pauln6]

That is how I would handle it. But I would leave it at appears to be trustworthy.

Yeah me too - 15 years ago - but after playing for so long, of course my players trust almost nothing anybody says to them so I expect them to rise above that and roleplay to a higher standard. Nobody is forced to do anything but I may step in if they act completely contrary to PC personality and situation and I will reward them with XP and inspiration if they put in the effort. It's about the same level of intervention if a good cleric wants to go baby-eating - a less than subtle reminder of the situation and they usually rethink and try a bit harder.

 

[iserith]

As a DM you have to dictate what PCs see, hear, and know, even including where some PCS spot things and others don't.

I agree. I just don't think the DM may say what a character thinks, says, or does.

An experienced player may know everything there is to know about Rakshasas but I would expect him to roleplay his dumb barbarian as if he didn't.

I wouldn't. If I want a monster's abilities to be a mystery, I'll just change its stat block.

I would not expect a player to target a monster if his PC has failed to beat its stealth score.

A player could choose to describe that as what he or she wants to do, but I still get to narrate the outcome short of saying what the character thinks, says, or does.

Player should be expected to roleplay (shock). I don't see any disconnect between these situations. This is collaborative storytelling.

A player establishing the dumb barbarian as knowing something about rakshasas is roleplaying.

A player making a choice to attack an area where a creature is hiding is roleplaying.

It just may not be the kind of roleplaying you like...

I would argue that a player who has just been intimidated charging in to attack the intimidator as not getting into the spirit of the roleplaying.

...case in point.

But that player is playing a role and determining how the character thinks and acts. Roleplaying just comes down to making decisions your character might also reasonably make. Might, not would or should, because it's a fictional character under the total control of the player. We have Inspiration for when a player roleplays in a manner consistent with established personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws, as you mention in a later post.

 

[iserith]

Fine. "He appears to be lying."

I think that's better and clarifies your position. Thank you.

I am describing what the PC is able to perceive, just like I do in response to any other attempt to interact with the game world they make. A Intuition check made to determine whether or not someone is lying works exactly the same way as a Perception check made against someone who is attempting to physically obscure something (be it their identity via Disguise, their slipping something into a pocket via Sleight of Hand or their actual presence via Stealth).

I think the hangup a lot of DMs have in my experience is not thinking through the fictional action that is being undertaken that may call for a Wisdom (Insight) check. As the rules say, the character is trying to discern the true intentions of a creature (goal) by gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms (approach). This informs the DM as to what is being adjudicated into success, failure, or uncertainty. Many DMs will say something like "You believe him..." on a failed check, but that is not a natural outcome of failure given the fictional action that is undertaken. The simplest form of failure is that you fail to glean any clues. This leaves what the character thinks about the NPC's truthfulness and what he or she does about it to the player, where I think it belongs.

Or do you let your players decide whether or not they can see the thief sneaking through the shadows, too?

Players may only describe what they want to do. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

 

[Kalshane]

I think the hangup a lot of DMs have in my experience is not thinking through the fictional action that is being undertaken that may call for a Wisdom (Insight) check. As the rules say, the character is trying to discern the true intentions of a creature (goal) by gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms (approach). This informs the DM as to what is being adjudicated into success, failure, or uncertainty. Many DMs will say something like "You believe him..." on a failed check, but that is not a natural outcome of failure given the fictional action that is undertaken. The simplest form of failure is that you fail to glean any clues. This leaves what the character thinks about the NPC's truthfulness and what he or she does about it to the player, where I think it belongs.

This I can agree with. The DM shouldn't say "You believe him" (short of some magical compulsion) but rather "He appears to be telling the truth" or "He seems honest" or "You don't detect any signs he's lying." Though I think a DM that used a shorthand along the lines of "You don't think he's lying" isn't trying to specifically decide how the PC is reacting, but rather choosing their words poorly and would rephrase if questioned on it (as I did above.) Even the most-skilled DM isn't going to always choose the most perfect word or phrasing all the time.

 

[iserith]

Even the most-skilled DM isn't going to always choose the most perfect word or phrasing all the time.

Oh, for sure. It's a good goal, but nobody's perfect.

 

[Uchawi]

Yeah me too - 15 years ago - but after playing for so long, of course my players trust almost nothing anybody says to them so I expect them to rise above that and roleplay to a higher standard. Nobody is forced to do anything but I may step in if they act completely contrary to PC personality and situation and I will reward them with XP and inspiration if they put in the effort. It's about the same level of intervention if a good cleric wants to go baby-eating - a less than subtle reminder of the situation and they usually rethink and try a bit harder.

Acting in accordance to what is written on a piece of paper for a PC or NPC is one of the hardest parts of the game and the most rewarding. The are a host of things that can ruin it like external bias, meta-gaming, or simply being a d***. Assuming that is not a problem, then one skill roll should not determine an outcome, except for minor stuff. So let the PCs ask questions, poke and prod to finally trust the NPC. Hopefully, the NPCs are varied based on personality so one line of tactics to gain information will not always work, including the use of spells.

 

[JediGamemaster]

I wouldn't. If I want a monster's abilities to be a mystery, I'll just change its stat block.

I prefer to not let people cheat at a game... your character knowledge and your out of game knowledge are different...

A player could choose to describe that as what he or she wants to do, but I still get to narrate the outcome short of saying what the character thinks, says, or does.

witch no one has argued...

A player establishing the dumb barbarian as knowing something about rakshasas is roleplaying.

A player making a choice to attack an area where a creature is hiding is roleplaying.

It just may not be the kind of roleplaying you like...

your right it's a type of role playing I don't like... I call it cheating...

I remember back in the 90's I was playing at my local college and some of the guys would try to look at the DM notes while we got food and stuff... then acted smart by 'figuring stuff out.' it wasn't cute when I was in my 20's it's not cute now...

But that player is playing a role and determining how the character thinks and acts.

I agree with you on this one... "Hey my character reacts to being intimidated with a fight response" is perfectly valid...

Roleplaying just comes down to making decisions your character might also reasonably make. Might, not would or should, because it's a fictional character under the total control of the player.

yup... you get to decide how he or she reacts to being intimidated.

 

[Ristamar]

If the challenge of encounter relies solely on the players not metagaming, the DM needs to construct better encounters.