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

[Pauln6]

It's interesting to see both ends of the argument but the exact implementation will vary from DM to DM and player to player. On one extreme, I can see why some players of martial characters have long be-moaned the clear superiority of spell casters e.g. warlords should never be allowed to heal and persuasion should never persuade a PC.

Spells are a limited resource that effectively enhance what one can achieve with skills. Players get to decide how their characters acts when charmed and how their character acts when influenced by a high diplomacy roll. I'd be more inclined to nudge them in the right direction with the spell because as DM, I AM the personification of that spell but I am also the personification of that persuasion even though I personally may not be as persuasive as the NPC is meant to be. The stats take us beyond ourselves because that's what they are meant to do. Otherwise we are still playing 1e before the introduction of skill checks where caster really was king.

 

[JediGamemaster]

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

why, that's like saying "If your encounter relies solely on the players not using loaded dice, the DM need to construct better encounters" why should I even 'account' for cheating? Of course cheating makes the game easier... the amount of cheating that you accept will vary from table to table, but at the end of the day it's still cheating...

 

[Shirebrok]

I've read most of the thread thus far.

From what I get, you'd roll Intimidation against the PCs, tell them the result of the roll and let them act however they wish. Wouldn't it simply be easier to narrate or provide fiction I can work with?
"He rolled 5/10/15/20 on his Intimidation roll" doesn't provide me with much information as a player. I'm not sure how that translates or is relevant relative my own stats...
For that matter, how do you resolve an Intimidation roll against the PCs anyway? How do you set the DC? What are the implications of success and failure? Considering there is no mechanical effect tied to it and the PCs get to do what they wish with that information, why even roll at all?
I don't think this has been brought up yet, but at the mechanical and gameplay levels, this method makes no sense me.

Then I found this post of yours:

OK, I took a piss break and now am going to try again [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]... imagine a game where you want to have an orc try to intimidate the players, and think he should have a chance... have that scenero in your mind and think about everything you say and do. You don't force the players to act or play or declair anything, but you set up the scene with clues (some little and sutble and some heavier) at the end you are trying to get across to the "He is intimidating" but you let them choose how to react...

I think that's how you do it... me too, but with less words. Instead of describing a huge long scene, I tell them the number I rolled... the end result
let them choose how to react...
is the same, but I get to it differently...

If I understand correctly, you let the dice describe the environment for you. For example, a high result could be translated as "The orc chieftain yells a loud 'WAAAAGH' and his soldiers seem to have been brought to a frenzy"; a low roll could be "The orc chieftain makes a remark about your mother's loose morals. A few of his soldiers chuckle at the crude joke".

Is that it?

 

[JediGamemaster]

I've read most of the thread thus far.

From what I get, you'd roll Intimidation against the PCs, tell them the result of the roll and let them act however they wish. Wouldn't it simply be easier to narrate or provide fiction I can work with?
"He rolled 5/10/15/20 on his Intimidation roll" doesn't provide me with much information as a player. I'm not sure how that translates or is relevant relative my own stats...
For that matter, how do you resolve an Intimidation roll against the PCs anyway? How do you set the DC? What are the implications of success and failure? Considering there is no mechanical effect tied to it and the PCs get to do what they wish with that information, why even roll at all?
I don't think this has been brought up yet, but at the mechanical and gameplay levels, this method makes no sense me.

Then I found this post of yours:



If I understand correctly, you let the dice describe the environment for you. For example, a high result could be translated as "The orc chieftain yells a loud 'WAAAAGH' and his soldiers seem to have been brought to a frenzy"; a low roll could be "The orc chieftain makes a remark about your mother's loose morals. A few of his soldiers chuckle at the crude joke".

Is that it?

No I start with a quick description... "The orc screams out a threat half I common and half in orcish both come out with a bit of a growl" now some times it ends with that, because that's it, however if I want to add in how intimidating I would add, "Now everyone roll a will save (well now it would be wis or cha witch ever is higher) I got an intimidate check 23...

now each player would take that a bit differently. however the difference between an intimidate 9 and a 23 is very much HOW BAD he sounds... it's a gage of how intimidating he is... The PCs then can look at there own rolls and decide what it means...

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Cool thread. I fall on the side of the don't tell the players what they think or feel and try to resolve things without dice if possible, including things like searching or interacting with NPC. 3e seemed to really push the dice as the main method of resolving anything and I'm glad that has swung back a bit in the 5e rules. Though it would be nice if my 3e bard with the +22 to diplomacy checks could use that on other PC, "Awesome I got the vorpal sword!", a 40 diplomacy check is made, "hand that over I talked you out of that!" Makes for more involved gamers IME if they are having to think through what their PC is saying and doing a bit more.

And I definitely don't sweat it if players who have been playing for 30 years don't get themselves killed by acting like they don't know that a monster in the game needs to be killed with fire. We are playing a game and I hope to challenge the player more than the character sheet. However one is having fun is the right way to play in any event.

 

[Shirebrok]

No I start with a quick description... "The orc screams out a threat half I common and half in orcish both come out with a bit of a growl" now some times it ends with that, because that's it, however if I want to add in how intimidating I would add, "Now everyone roll a will save (well now it would be wis or cha witch ever is higher) I got an intimidate check 23...

now each player would take that a bit differently. however the difference between an intimidate 9 and a 23 is very much HOW BAD he sounds... it's a gage of how intimidating he is... The PCs then can look at there own rolls and decide what it means...

Oh, OK. I think I'm starting to get it now.

Basically, the orc's Intimidation check sets the DC for PCs' saving throw?* And then the players decide what to do with the result of their saving throw? I can see how that would be useful in guiding roleplaying to a certain degree, but then again you're not forcing them to act in a certain way from what I gather.
So, for example, would it be okay for a PC who has failed the saving throw against the orc's intimidation by more than 10 (say, 3 vs DC 17) to throw an insult back at it, rather than backing down?

* Using a d20 to set a DC seems rather swingy to me. I'd probably use a d10 or d12, but that's just me.

 

[iserith]

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

It's only cheating at your game, perhaps. Character and player knowledge are not necessarily different. Sometimes they are the same. Even if you as DM opt to establish what characters know, you cannot (at least according to the rules) determine what they think or try to do.

So if a player says his or her character thinks that rakshasa are vulnerable to piercing weapons wielded by good-aligned characters, then that is what the character thinks. If a player has his or her good-aligned character attack that rakshasa with a piercing weapon, then that is what the character does. The DM may only narrate the result of the adventurer's actions. Again, according to the rules. You may play the game differently and that's okay.

Of course, there are a couple of simple methods for challenging players who have knowledge of a monster's vulnerabilities that do not rely upon you telling others how to make decisions for their characters. First, you can change the monster's stat block - nice and easy. Perhaps it's slashing weapons wielded by neutral characters that best harm a rakshasa. Alternatively, you can leave the stat block as-is, but make using the knowledge difficult or dangerous. Maybe the rakshasa's throne room is infused with magical smoke from an evil hookah which imparts disadvantage to the attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws of good-aligned creatures. Or instead of that, damage from slashing or piercing weapons wielded by a good-aligned creature causes the rakshasa's fiendish blood to spill onto the ground and form into 2d6 lemures.

And naturally, I recommend that all of these things be telegraphed to the players before things kick off with the rakshasa so that they aren't viewed as a "gotcha."

witch no one has argued...

I'm not so sure about that. I think plenty of DMs like to say what a character thinks including some in this thread.

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...

You're welcome to call that "cheating" if you like, but it only applies to your game, and I think it definitely falls short of surreptitiously reading the DM's notes. Of course, I wouldn't necessarily care about that either. I create challenges that don't rely upon player ignorance or feigned ignorance to be difficult and fun. I've run one-shots multiple times for the same players at their own request so they can see how things turn out with different groups and characters. It's always been fun and challenging.

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

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

The player gets to decide how the character reacts to the NPC's attempt to intimidate him or her, yes. "Being intimidated" is saying how the character acts and thinks.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Cool thread. I fall on the side of the don't tell the players what they think or feel and try to resolve things without dice if possible, including things like searching or interacting with NPC. 3e seemed to really push the dice as the main method of resolving anything and I'm glad that has swung back a bit in the 5e rules. Though it would be nice if my 3e bard with the +22 to diplomacy checks could use that on other PC, "Awesome I got the vorpal sword!", a 40 diplomacy check is made, "hand that over I talked you out of that!" Makes for more involved gamers IME if they are having to think through what their PC is saying and doing a bit more.

And I definitely don't sweat it if players who have been playing for 30 years don't get themselves killed by acting like they don't know that a monster in the game needs to be killed with fire. We are playing a game and I hope to challenge the player more than the character sheet. However one is having fun is the right way to play in any event.

I don't remember it ever coming up back in 2e at all... but me and my friends where high end high school and low end college back then. As we got older though we had a real problem with someone (especially as we expaned into more and more power gamers) dumping stats then playing around them... Gee my half orc with a 7 cha knows exactly what to say to the king because I the player am good at that... and I know the spell cast with my 9 Int and no spellcraft or arana because I out of game read the books, mean while the kid next to me with 16 cha and Int both with ranks in diplomacy, arcana and spell craft but out of game little skill can't do that, but also isn't as good at the fights because all of your resources went to the one part of the game that will be rolled and you 'role play' the parts he spent on...

 

[JediGamemaster]

Oh, OK. I think I'm starting to get it now.

Basically, the orc's Intimidation check sets the DC for PCs' saving throw?* And then the players decide what to do with the result of their saving throw? I can see how that would be useful in guiding roleplaying to a certain degree, but then again you're not forcing them to act in a certain way from what I gather.
So, for example, would it be okay for a PC who has failed the saving throw against the orc's intimidation by more than 10 (say, 3 vs DC 17) to throw an insult back at it, rather than backing down?

* Using a d20 to set a DC seems rather swingy to me. I'd probably use a d10 or d12, but that's just me.

you get the idea... in the game like the real world intimidating someone intirely relies on who they are. SOme people when intimdated fall apart and cry (good luck getting anything out of the ball of tears) some punch because there fight or flight response is fight (rarely what you want, but hey it happens) some people run... there are thousands of things and how Your character reacts is up to you.

You could even ignore it. Some people just hide that they are intimidated... in the real world it depends on the day what way I act.

 

[iserith]

Cool thread. I fall on the side of the don't tell the players what they think or feel and try to resolve things without dice if possible, including things like searching or interacting with NPC. 3e seemed to really push the dice as the main method of resolving anything and I'm glad that has swung back a bit in the 5e rules. Though it would be nice if my 3e bard with the +22 to diplomacy checks could use that on other PC, "Awesome I got the vorpal sword!", a 40 diplomacy check is made, "hand that over I talked you out of that!" Makes for more involved gamers IME if they are having to think through what their PC is saying and doing a bit more.

And I definitely don't sweat it if players who have been playing for 30 years don't get themselves killed by acting like they don't know that a monster in the game needs to be killed with fire. We are playing a game and I hope to challenge the player more than the character sheet. However one is having fun is the right way to play in any event.

I think a lot of concerns over the separation of character and player knowledge stem from the negative view of "metagaming" that was communicated in 20th-century versions of D&D. I don't think that mindset really fits with D&D 4e or D&D 5e and, in fact, the section of "metagame thinking" in D&D 5e DMG is lifted almost wholesale from the D&D 4e DMG. (The only part that is left out of the D&D 5e DMG is the bit about making extraneous rolls to throw players off, a technique recommended by some in another thread.)

And really, the examples that are given with regard to "metagame thinking" center around players not getting disgruntled over bad assumptions that cause them to lose characters or waste valuable game time. It it mute on the issue of drawing upon player knowledge of monsters or the like. I think that's a great improvement over previous editions. Naturally, traditions die long, slow deaths and, where it's fun for a group to do so, they should keep that tradition alive. I just don't count myself among that number.