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

[JediGamemaster]

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.

using out of game knowledge in game is cheating just because you let your players cheat doesn't make it not cheating/

So if a player says his or her character thinks that rakshasa are vulnerable to piercing weapons wielded by good-aligned characters,

then they better have a reason IN GAME for thinking it or justifying it or they are just plane cheating...

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.

yea, and the best is to remind them this isn't a video game you should play your character with what your character knows....

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."

or instead of trying to do back flips to change the game we can all just play the game...

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

I haven't seen any yet... but since people keep accusing me of it maybe I missed it...

You're welcome to call that "cheating" if you like, but it only applies to your game,

you are free to house rule what you want, but in a real role playing game using out of game knowledge in game is cheating and is called meta gaming

Metagaming is any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game. Another definition refers to the game universe outside of the game itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metagaming_(role-playing_games)

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 on the other hand make D&D adventures...

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.

same here, the difference is at no point would I be OK with a player at the table saying "Last time the door on the right was a pitfiend, so lets go left..."

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.

being intimidated is a reaction to proper stimuli, how you act when intimifated is up to you... that's like saying "I don't declair an enemy is unseen just because they made a stealth cheak I let the player decide what they do and don't see"

 

[Shirebrok]

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.

All right, I get it.

I kind of feel like that's a whole lot of rolling for nothing. After all, if I get to do whatever I want anyway, why are we taking valuable game time to establish how I might feel? It seems so... unnecessary.
But looking at it from a different perspective, it looks like this might be an okay way to guide players who aren't sure how they would react. And I doubt you do this every single time the PCs react to something, so I suspect it doesn't take that much game time over the course of a session.

Just for the heck of asking: If I were in that game of yours, in that particular situation with the orc chieftain, would you be cool with me saying "Nah, I'm not going to roll that saving throw; I already know how I feel about this and I have a few choice words for that bloody orc!"

 

[Shirebrok]

Sorry for the double post, and I don't want to be a back-seat mod, but can we keep the player/character knowledge debate out of this thread? This one's doing just nicely; I wouldn't want it to get derailed.

 

[JediGamemaster]

All right, I get it.

I kind of feel like that's a whole lot of rolling for nothing. After all, if I get to do whatever I want anyway, why are we taking valuable game time to establish how I might feel? It seems so... unnecessary.

it's not really a lot at least not for intimidate, if it comes up 5 times in 20 levels (a year or there abouts) that is a lot... as for why, because players need something to base there reactions on, and this is one of many things that help them improvise there characters...

But looking at it from a different perspective, it looks like this might be an okay way to guide players who aren't sure how they would react. And I doubt you do this every single time the PCs react to something, so I suspect it doesn't take that much game time over the course of a session.

ding... you got it...

Just for the heck of asking: If I were in that game of yours, in that particular situation with the orc chieftain, would you be cool with me saying "Nah, I'm not going to roll that saving throw; I already know how I feel about this and I have a few choice words for that bloody orc!"

yup... in fact one of the funniest example I have from this was a PC ranger who in 3e decided he was going to run away... and did without rolling

 

[JediGamemaster]

Sorry for the double post, and I don't want to be a back-seat mod, but can we keep the player/character knowledge debate out of this thread? This one's doing just nicely; I wouldn't want it to get derailed.

I don't know if you can divorce these two points...

If I am allowed to say "I am immune to intimidate" because it is what my character thinks, and "I burn the troll" the first time I see one ever, and "I know vampires level drain" with no roll or even ingame hint, then why not "I hit... no I'm not rolling but my character I am 100% in control of always hits"

 

[iserith]

using out of game knowledge in game is cheating just because you let your players cheat doesn't make it not cheating/

Please show where this is stated in the rules of the game.

then they better have a reason IN GAME for thinking it or justifying it or they are just plane cheating...

Perhaps in your game or those who agree with you. Not in everyone else's.

yea, and the best is to remind them this isn't a video game you should play your character with what your character knows....

"Yeah, and my good-aligned character knows how to stick a spear into a rakshasa. So I rush up and thrust it into the thing while casting aspersions on its curly-toed shoes."

or instead of trying to do back flips to change the game we can all just play the game...

What I suggest is not only substantially easier than doing backflips, but something you can actually control. You can't control how other people make decisions for their characters. You can control how players gain advantage for themselves by using their knowledge of monsters via changing the stat blocks or setting up trade-offs.

Would you rather do something that is in your control or cajole others into playing the way you want them to play?

I haven't seen any yet... but since people keep accusing me of it maybe I missed it...

I invite you to reread the thread.

you are free to house rule what you want, but in a real role playing game using out of game knowledge in game is cheating and is called meta gaming

I have not made any house rules in this regard. Again, please show justification for this assertion in the actual rules of the game.

I on the other hand make D&D adventures...

Me too. I've posted some on this site. They still don't rely upon ignorance to challenge the players.

same here, the difference is at no point would I be OK with a player at the table saying "Last time the door on the right was a pitfiend, so lets go left..."

I'd be fine with it. I don't care how players make decisions for their own characters. It's none of my business. I just describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions, sometimes invoking rules and dice to resolve uncertainty.

being intimidated is a reaction to proper stimuli, how you act when intimifated is up to you... that's like saying "I don't declair an enemy is unseen just because they made a stealth cheak I let the player decide what they do and don't see"

I don't think it's the role of the DM to say how a character thinks and acts, short of magical compulsion.

As to the topic of player and character knowledge, this is off-topic and I would recommend you start another thread if you wish to discuss it. I'm sure it will go well.

 

[Shirebrok]

it's not really a lot at least not for intimidate, if it comes up 5 times in 20 levels (a year or there abouts) that is a lot... as for why, because players need something to base there reactions on, and this is one of many things that help them improvise there characters...

Well, I don't think I'd say "players need" (I certainly didn't, in the example), but rather "some players might want". Aside from that, I have no problem with what you're saying.

I don't think that's a technique I would use, but you're certainly free to do as you wish, and I'll add it to my repertoire.

 

[iserith]

If I am allowed to say "I am immune to intimidate" because it is what my character thinks, and "I burn the troll" the first time I see one ever, and "I know vampires level drain" with no roll or even ingame hint, then why not "I hit... no I'm not rolling but my character I am 100% in control of always hits"

Because for one, the rules say a player determines what his or her character does, says, and thinks - not the DM. And two, the rules say the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions - not the player.

So, as I see it, the DM can describe the orc as trying to intimidate the PC with a vicious war cry, but the player says how the character responds. The player can describe the character trying to attack the troll with fire* and the DM narrates the results. The player also can say the character thinks that vampires "level-drain.*" But the player cannot say his or her character hits. The player may only say the character tries to hit. The DM determines the result, often relying upon the rules and dice to figure out what happens.

* If the DM has changed trolls and vampires, the player made a bad assumption due to "metagame thinking," exactly what the DMG warned against!

 

[JediGamemaster]

Well, I don't think I'd say "players need" (I certainly didn't, in the example), but rather "some players might want". Aside from that, I have no problem with what you're saying.

I don't think that's a technique I would use, but you're certainly free to do as you wish, and I'll add it to my repertoire.

It works really well when you have players who don't pick up on social cues, or ones that don't understand visually what you describe. It can also become a great short hand even if they don't fall into those catagories, but it is only 1 tool in the box not something to bog every social interaction into

 

[JediGamemaster]

I have never been happier for my local player base then I have been in the last few weeks here...

I don't think it's the role of the DM to say how a character thinks and acts, short of magical compulsion.

As to the topic of player and character knowledge, this is off-topic and I would recommend you start another thread if you wish to discuss it. I'm sure it will go well.

OK I will ignore the whole player knowledge thing for now and just invite you to reread the last page or so where I clearly showed and was understood by others that at no point have I EVER tried to control how a pc thinks or acts... so stop pretending that I do