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

[JediGamemaster]

I'm trying to explain to you how it is that you are, in fact, telling a player how his or her character thinks or acts

then let me be perfectly clear I DO NOT TELL MY PLAYERS HOW HIS OR HER CHARACTER THINKS OR ACTS!!!!!!!!!

I don't know how else to spell this out... my players control what there character thinks, says, does... I have never said they don't You keep pretending that by my NPC intimidating them that forces them to think say or do something you do so no matter how many times I explain that I do not tell them how to think or how to act or what to say...

I tell them they feel wet when they touch water, I tell them they feel hot in the dessert, by your crazy definition that is taking away there agency... I once went so far in a darksun game to tell a player he was over heating, dehydrated, and about to suffer heat stroke... that still is not telling him what to do how to act or what to think...

THE PLAYER IS ALWAYS IN COTROL OF WHAT HE SAYS THINKS OR DOES... even the creaters of the game use the skills, and earlier in the thread we got that from them... The monsters Manuel gives the orcs an intimidated check, using it against the PCs is no different then using the orc's axe...or sword...or bow.

STOP TELLING ME I TELL THEM WHAT TO DO THINK OR SAY!

 

[Ristamar]

Full disclaimer: I think most attempts to methodically disassociate player knowledge from character knowledge are total mental wankery that have no true measure of authenticity.

That being said, I posted these questions in another thread a few months back, but I think they're relevant to the current discussion:

Is it preferable to have players that have little or no experience with the game system you're running to avoid conditioned or metagame behavior? If one of the highest priorities is restraint or circumvention of metagame behavior, I would assume running new campaigns with a veteran group could be difficult. The more familiarity a player has with a system, the more mental gymnastics (s)he has to perform in an effort to disassociate personal knowledge and experience relative to a new character's lack of knowledge and experience.

Do you modify or expand upon existing systems to allow for more exploratory actions and mechanics to assist in determining and expanding the relative boundaries of a character's abilities? For example, how do spellcasters come to fully understand their spells' power variance? How do healers determine the level of spell they need to cure an ally's wounds? Are there utility spells or skill mechanics that would help probe innate defenses or test the efficacy of various actions or effects?

At what point is the effort to disassociate dropped in favor of accepted rationalization? How does a player know when his character has the proverbial light bulb turn on when exploring new skills and abilities or absorbing new information? Is the player or the DM the ultimate arbiter of what rationalization is acceptable and what crosses the line into metagaming?

 

[iserith]

then let me be perfectly clear I DO NOT TELL MY PLAYERS HOW HIS OR HER CHARACTER THINKS OR ACTS!!!!!!!!!

I don't know how else to spell this out... my players control what there character thinks, says, does... I have never said they don't You keep pretending that by my NPC intimidating them that forces them to think say or do something you do so no matter how many times I explain that I do not tell them how to think or how to act or what to say...

I tell them they feel wet when they touch water, I tell them they feel hot in the dessert, by your crazy definition that is taking away there agency... I once went so far in a darksun game to tell a player he was over heating, dehydrated, and about to suffer heat stroke... that still is not telling him what to do how to act or what to think...

THE PLAYER IS ALWAYS IN COTROL OF WHAT HE SAYS THINKS OR DOES... even the creaters of the game use the skills, and earlier in the thread we got that from them... The monsters Manuel gives the orcs an intimidated check, using it against the PCs is no different then using the orc's axe...or sword...or bow.

STOP TELLING ME I TELL THEM WHAT TO DO THINK OR SAY!

It's time for me to turn in. I hope that by the time I rise, you will have taken the time to answer the two questions I have posed here. I don't think that's a lot to ask for considering the length of our discussion thus far. If you continue to evade the questions and insist that you're not doing what you've said you're doing, I think our discourse will have come to the end of its usefulness.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's about the DM establishing what a character thinks, says, or does.

I do believe that it has become more than that. I would suggest you take a look at the fact that your thoughts (that you are entitled to) are not universal and at least some people totally disagree with your assessment here. It is getting comically bad now. This entire thread got started because back in the warlord thread I pointed out that this was a perfectly valid way to play and read the rules (use intimidate, and other social skills on PCs) weather you choose to or not at your table you can go back through 13 of the last 26 pages (since like half has been this yes/no argument) and see that both ways are valid and there are people who do not feel as you do... play what you like but don't tell another DM that he is taking away something or forcing his will on PCs without a lot more evidence then "I choose to believe you do."

 

[iserith]

I do believe that it has become more than that. I would suggest you take a look at the fact that your thoughts (that you are entitled to) are not universal and at least some people totally disagree with your assessment here. It is getting comically bad now. This entire thread got started because back in the warlord thread I pointed out that this was a perfectly valid way to play and read the rules (use intimidate, and other social skills on PCs) weather you choose to or not at your table you can go back through 13 of the last 26 pages (since like half has been this yes/no argument) and see that both ways are valid and there are people who do not feel as you do... play what you like but don't tell another DM that he is taking away something or forcing his will on PCs without a lot more evidence then "I choose to believe you do."

Excuse me, but every single post I have made has been in the context of my experience, my view, my opinion. I have made that very clear. I am not telling anyone they are playing wrong. In fact, I have been periodically encouraging participants in the discussion that they should do what's most fun for them. I'm telling those with whom I am discussing what would and would not fly with me as a player or as a DM and why. That is all. Please do not read further into it than that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Scenarios:

Player: "I think he's lying."
DM: "Roll Insight."
Player: "Um...4."
DM: "He rolls Deception 12. So you believe him."
Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?"
DM: "You believe him; his Deception was higher than your Insight."

DM: "The guard rolls Intimidate and gets an 18. Yeah, you're intimidated."
Player: "Oh, ok I guess I'll just keep moving then."

Player: "I don't think I want to do this quest for only 100 gold."
DM: "The magistrate rolls Persuade and gets...a natural 20!"
Player: "Darn. Looks like I'll take the quest."

Any reactions? How many people play the way that's described in those three scenarios?

With the first, I wouldn't say "He rolls X", I would say "You totally believe him" or "You can find no evidence that he is lying", and my players would laugh, but they'd go along with it.

With the second, I think that's a bit much - I'd merely say he "seems very threatening" or "seems like a tough bastard" or the like to them.

With the last, things don't work like that in EITHER direction, so yeah, no. Persuade isn't mind-control.

I'm comfortable with asymmetry in this regard, too - it's fine if some things work differently for PCs and NPCs - D&D 5E is not a strong game for simulationism.

 

[Umbran]

If you continue to evade the questions and insist that you're not doing what you've said you're doing, I think our discourse will have come to the end of its usefulness.

"Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Please stop insisting that folks follow your particular script. He gets to address the matter as he sees fit. He has done so. Move on.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MG.0]

I am only replying to the original poster's first post. ( I haven't bothered to read this giant thread. )

I have never seen anyone play D&D or any roleplaying game the way you describe. I would walk out of any such game as a player. All of those scenarios are wrong...wrong...wrong.

You don't roll intimidate checks to force characters into behaving a certain way; only the player can decide if his character is intimidated. To play it the way you describe is to get the entire game backward and inside out. It is always bad form to make a character do something against a player's wishes unless the character is subject to magical influence, posession, etc.

In a nutshell:

How to play a roleplaying game:

1. DM describes the world to the players.
2. Players decide what their characters do.
3. DM decides whether or not those actions succeed, sometimes involving the rolling of dice.
4. Repeat.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*