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

[iserith]

maybe we should go for one of my examples... the cook is about to lie and tell the players he was out doing something but the PCs are bad at telling if people are lying, but the CHaracters are very skilled in it... and the best character (has a feat and high wis) is the one that is the most oblivus to clues... if I tell him 'he is acting shady' she will ask what that means...

DM: The cook's eyes dart back and forth and he wipes his brow with a filthy rag. "I was out picking up bread from the Guild of Millers at 5 bells..." What do you do?
Player: As we're talking to the cook, I take note of his mannerisms to see if I can determine his truthfulness.
DM: What makes you suspicious of the cook?
Player: Well, for one, the Guild of Millers isn't open for business at 5 bells. We already looked into that.
DM: That's true, you did. So you have some evidence that he might not be telling the truth. Let's see a Wisdom (Insight) check - DC 12. If you succeed, I'll tell you whether the cook is truthful or lying. If you fail the check, you can't determine his truthfulness until you gather additional evidence.
Player: Okay. *rolls*

Or perhaps...

DM: The cook's eyes dart back and forth and he wipes his brow with a filthy rag. "I was out picking up bread from the Guild of Millers at 5 bells..." What do you do?
Player: As we're talking to the cook, I take note of his mannerisms to see if I can determine his truthfulness.
DM: What makes you suspicious of the cook?
Player: No particular reason.
DM: Okay. You're not able to determine his truthfulness one way or another simply by observing him during the interaction. Perhaps additional evidence will prove his words true or false.

 

[pukunui]

I dno;t understand the difference between magic and skill in this case.

I think this could be part of your problem.

I agree but there are times that descriptions don't work, and that is when dice help determain the outcome

From the 5e PHB (page 174): "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

From the 5e DMG (page 237): "Remember that dice don't run your game - you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving ..." and "When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores ... Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure."

 

[JediGamemaster]

How is it being adversarial? Your approach sounds more adversarial to me than mine does. If I was your player, and you told me that my character was intimidated - not because of magic but because your dice said so - I would not like that at all.

letting the dice fall is way less then trying to make someone explain something you know they can't...

5e takes a very old school approach to gaming. The roleplaying comes first.

I don't know how old school it is, but that has always been my way fo doing thing...

The dice are just there to be used to help determine uncertain outcomes.

like "Can I tell if he's lying" or "Does the orc warlord intimidate him"

In fact, the 5e DMG outright says that the rules are there to serve you, the DM, not the other way around.

what does that have to do with anything...

Care to expand on that? If you're going to tell your players what their characters think or do, then why even have players? That makes it sound more like you're writing a story with a live audience than playing a cooperative game with other people.

this entire thread has been me explaining...I am not writing a story I tell part of a story and the players each control a character when a question of uncertianity comes up I either make a gut call or we roll dice... It's called D&D

example: the rat finch says "I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything>"
the player says "Can I tell if he's lieing"
no roll me as DM "Yea he isn't very good at this and you are, your sure he did it"
vs
charming rogue says "I was no where near there."
player "Can I tell if he's lieing"
Me as DM "Roll insight" while I roll bluff behind the screen
if I win roll off "You have no reason to think he's lying"
if player wins roll off "Yup, you know he's full of it."

 

[iserith]

the npc took an action, used a skill and I fairly used and apply the rules..

Try looking at it this way:

The NPC did something to influence a character. You determined that the outcome of that thing had an uncertain outcome and a chance of determining how a character thinks and acts. You rolled dice to determine that outcome. You then narrated the result of the NPC's actions and the impact on the character. And now, I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you expect the player to play true to whatever you just said his character thinks or acts.

I don't get to say, but NPCs can take actions that effect (both magic and mundain)

In my game, what an NPC can affect when it comes to PCs stops where it comes to infringing upon the player's right to determine how the character thinks, acts, or what he or she says. Except when it comes to magical compulsion. That is the only time I can say what a character does.

I dno;t understand the difference between magic and skill in this case.

Magic of the kind we're discussing has a specific effect - charming, dominating, or the like. An ability check is used to resolve uncertainty in a fictional action taken. However, since the rules tell us that the player is who determines how a character thinks, acts, and what he or she says, there is no uncertainty when it comes to how a character responds to that NPC's fictional actions. The player decides.

because it is another tool in the tool box

I would see that as a tool for controlling the characters. That doesn't fly at my table. The players control the characters.

I agree but there are times that descriptions don't work, and that is when dice help determain the outcome

The descriptions don't work to accomplish... what though? Getting the players to do what you want, right? Be intimidated or deceived or whatever. That is a level of control over the character that the DM does not have at our table.

 

[JediGamemaster]

DM: The cook's eyes dart back and forth and he wipes his brow with a filthy rag. "I was out picking up bread from the Guild of Millers at 5 bells..." What do you do?
Player: As we're talking to the cook, I take note of his mannerisms to see if I can determine his truthfulness.
DM: What makes you suspicious of the cook?
Player: Well, for one, the Guild of Millers isn't open for business at 5 bells. We already looked into that.
DM: That's true, you did. So you have some evidence that he might not be telling the truth. Let's see a Wisdom (Insight) check - DC 12. If you succeed, I'll tell you whether the cook is truthful or lying. If you fail the check, you can't determine his truthfulness until you gather additional evidence.
Player: Okay. *rolls*

Or perhaps...

DM: The cook's eyes dart back and forth and he wipes his brow with a filthy rag. "I was out picking up bread from the Guild of Millers at 5 bells..." What do you do?
Player: As we're talking to the cook, I take note of his mannerisms to see if I can determine his truthfulness.
DM: What makes you suspicious of the cook?
Player: No particular reason.
DM: Okay. You're not able to determine his truthfulness one way or another simply by observing him during the interaction. Perhaps additional evidence will prove his words true or false.

that would never work with some of my players... Kelly especially would look at you and out right ask what you mean. She would ask if her background as an investigator, or her cleric skills or her observant feat helped... then she would totally not understand

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Some of the provided examples I would consider to be "badly played," but not necessarily "bad." For example, instead of just straight-up saying "You're intimidated" (which is horrible DMing, IMO), I'd frame it as a behavior the guard engaged in--probably without telling the player that I was rolling at all. For example:

DM: "Things are not going well at the town gate. Dwarves aren't well-liked in this settlement, and since you adventure with one..."
Elf PC: "I speak to the guard. Sir: I swear to you, on my family honor, that this woman is an upstanding member of the community who will respect all the laws of this land."
DM: "The guard looks from your face to hers, then back to yours. Finally, he stands very straight and approaches you [the elf], leaning close enough that you can feel the heat of his breath. You hear the sound of his sword sliding a few inches out of its scabbard, and he says, 'The dwarf can stay outside in one piece, or she can come inside in two pieces. Take your pick.' From the battered look of the man's armor, you can tell he's no stranger to combat, and he certainly looks like he could back up that threat."
Dwarf PC: "Maybe...uh...maybe it would be better for me to stay out here, for now, guys. If that's okay with you?"
Elf PC: "You have made an enemy this day, sir...what was your name?"
DM: "He says his name is Errol."
Elf PC: "Sir Errol, you have made an enemy of me and my house this day, but we will abide by your...restrictions...for the time being."
DM: "Errol sheathes his sword and says, 'See that you do.' "

Nowhere did the numbers or skill names show up, but the guard pretty clearly made an attempt to intimidate the party. For a low roll, or against a character that was known for being belligerent and winning fights, I'd narrate it differently--might say all the same stuff, but add, "Despite his bravado, you feel like you could take him if he tried something." Or might say something very different. I dunno. I'm not really a DM myself.

Basically: Show, don't tell. Show how the NPC (or hell, even the PC) intimidates, deceives, or persuades the party. Each and every one of those aforementioned things COULD have been done by a sufficiently-savvy DM spinning things properly.

Edit:
Maybe a better way to say this is that I don't have a problem with skill rolls influencing behavior, but I want that influence to be explained. Leaving it as "NPC rolls X, that beats your Y, therefore you are Z" is just painfully bad storytelling. If you're using these rolls--presumably, to determine which direction the story goes when you don't have a particular idea in mind--then it should be as a guide to how you address the situation. "Intimidate" doesn't automatically make the opponent afraid--but it may make them an enemy. "Persuade" doesn't automatically make people like you--but it does make your ideas sympathetic or attractive in some way. "Deception" doesn't mean people believe you--but it does mean that even if you've told them something false, they might act on it. Leverage that leeway in those skills. Intimidation might make the PCs back down out of fear of force...or it might incite them to attack. Persuasion might make the deal sound sweeter than it is, or lead to the addition of extra "fluffy" benefits which might be interesting down the line (for the stated "I don't wanna quest for just 100g..." example, perhaps, "If you do this quest for us, we will formally grant you a title in the Court--ceremonial, of course, but with some attendant privileges and access to <resource the PC might want, e.g. Royal Library or Militia Armory>.") Deception might give the players a half-truth, or put you in a position where you can imply something or let them draw a false conclusion and then "confirm" it with the NPC's testimony.

It's not *easy* by any means, but this is the kind of thing you really have to do if you're going to employ these "rolls" against PCs successfully.

 

[JediGamemaster]

I think this could be part of your problem.

From the 5e PHB (page 174): "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

From the 5e DMG (page 237): "Remember that dice don't run your game - you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving ..." and "When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores ... Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure."

both of those support my way of playing... if it is obvius tell the player, if it is up to chance roll dice, no where does it say "Make an elbrate discussion and make your player metagame

 

[iserith]

that would never work with some of my players... Kelly especially would look at you and out right ask what you mean. She would ask if her background as an investigator, or her cleric skills or her observant feat helped... then she would totally not understand

Her background, her skills, her feats - those might all weigh into the DM's decision as to whether or not what Kelly described her character as doing has an outcome that was uncertain and deserving of an ability check. If she's playing Sherlock Holmes, then I might just say she surely knows the cook is lying - no roll - based on the context of the situation and provided Kelly articulated a goal and approach I thought would work with certainty.

 

[JediGamemaster]

Try looking at it this way:

The NPC did something to influence a character. You determined that the outcome of that thing had an uncertain outcome and a chance of determining how a character thinks and acts. You rolled dice to determine that outcome. You then narrated the result of the NPC's actions and the impact on the character. And now, I assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you expect the player to play true to whatever you just said his character thinks or acts.

I describe the NPC action, then we roll then the Player determains how to act...

In my game, what an NPC can affect when it comes to PCs stops where it comes to infringing upon the player's right to determine how the character thinks, acts, or what he or she says. Except when it comes to magical compulsion. That is the only time I can say what a character does.

I don't think I'm infringing at all, I don't say "You must do X" I say "The character succesed in his intimidate/bluff/hide/what ever check"

Magic of the kind we're discussing has a specific effect - charming, dominating, or the like. An ability check is used to resolve uncertainty in a fictional action taken. However, since the rules tell us that the player is who determines how a character thinks, acts, and what he or she says, there is no uncertainty when it comes to how a character responds to that NPC's fictional actions. The player decides.

the player decides how to act in my game too... intimidate is normally fight or flight, but there is no rule inforceing that, you decide how to react to the intimidation... you are no more in control of the intimidation then you are in real life... you don't decide to be intimidated or not, you just are... you do decide how you react to it...

I would see that as a tool for controlling the characters. That doesn't fly at my table. The players control the characters.

I'm not controlling anything.

The descriptions don't work to accomplish... what though? Getting the players to do what you want, right? Be intimidated or deceived or whatever. That is a level of control over the character that the DM does not have at our table.

This is where you guys have me wrong... I don't WANT anything other then a fun game. the NPC WANTS to cowe the PC and thinks a show of force will do so, but all he can do is be intimadatign or not, the player decides if he is cowed or runs away or attacks or goes catatonic.

 

[JediGamemaster]

Her background, her skills, her feats - those might all weigh into the DM's decision as to whether or not what Kelly described her character as doing has an outcome that was uncertain and deserving of an ability check. If she's playing Sherlock Holmes, then I might just say she surely knows the cook is lying - no roll - based on the context of the situation and provided Kelly articulated a goal and approach I thought would work with certainty.

see this I agree on look back at the last few

example: the rat finch says "I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, you can't prove anything>"
the player says "Can I tell if he's lieing"
no roll me as DM "Yea he isn't very good at this and you are, your sure he did it"
vs
charming rogue says "I was no where near there."
player "Can I tell if he's lieing"
Me as DM "Roll insight" while I roll bluff behind the screen
if I win roll off "You have no reason to think he's lying"
if player wins roll off "Yup, you know he's full of it."

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...-and-Deceive-used-vs-PCs/page10#ixzz3o8Rmewqe