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

[pukunui]

what does that have to do with anything...

You appear to me to be trying to justify your behavior (telling your players how their characters react to NPCs' actions) by saying "It wasn't me! It was the dice!" I am trying to show you that the dice aren't in control. You, the DM, are! You can't claim that the dice made you do it. That's not a valid argument.

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

I never said it had to be an "elaborate discussion", nor did I say anyone needed to metagame.

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.

Then why roll for the NPC? Just describe him as being intimidating or persuasive or whatever and then let your players determine whether or not their characters are intimidated or persuaded or whatever.

 

[iserith]

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

The rules say players determine how their characters think, act, and what they say. (Basic Rules, page 66.) It's okay not to follow the rules, but you've indicated a desire to do so in previous posts so far as I can tell, or at least used them to justify your approach.

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"

Which means what though? Isn't there now an expectation about how a player must act to be considered "correct" in his or her roleplaying or that failing to do so is "metagaming?"

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...

You're still telling a player how the character thinks though. I don't think this is something the DM can do.

I'm not controlling anything.

You're controlling how a character thinks and acts - intimidated - and using the ability check to justify that control. If it's something your players are okay with, that's cool. It just wouldn't happen at my 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.

Sure, we all want fun games. The question is how to get there. I don't think getting there can include the DM saying how a character thinks or acts.

 

[JediGamemaster]

You appear to me to be trying to justify your behavior (telling your players how their characters react to NPCs' actions) by saying "It wasn't me! It was the dice!" I am trying to show you that the dice aren't in control. You, the DM, are! You can't claim that the dice made you do it. That's not a valid argument.

I would question whether this is actually the case in your game.

I never said it had to be an "elaborate discussion", nor did I say anyone needed to metagame.

you are being very insulting here, my players are incontrol of there character I'm in control of the NPC, when one influences the other I either give one an auto success or if I think there is a chance I let the dice roll...that is the main way the whole game works

 

[iserith]

see this I agree on look back at the last few

I think that in the event the charming rogue successfully deceives the character, the result of the adventurer's action to determine the rogue's truthfulness simply fails. The character is unable to determine the rogue's truthfulness and the player is free to have the character act as if the rogue is telling the truth or lying as he or she sees fit.

As I see it, it's the player describing the action to be adjudicated (discerning truthfulness), not the DM (deceiving).

 

[pukunui]

... my players are incontrol of there character I'm in control of the NPC ...

When you tell your players that their characters are intimidated or persuaded, then you are taking away their control of those characters.

 

[JediGamemaster]

The rules say players determine how their characters think, act, and what they say. (Basic Rules, page 66.) It's okay not to follow the rules, but you've indicated a desire to do so in previous posts so far as I can tell, or at least used them to justify your approach.

being intimidated is a reaction, it is an emotional response no one is in control of it happens or not. Knowing if someone is lying is no different then knowing the magic words with arcana... they are skills that are rolled or not.

Which means what though? Isn't there now an expectation about how a player must act to be considered "correct" in his or her roleplaying or that failing to do so is "metagaming?"

no... there is no correct way to be intimidated... it is up to you knowing you are...

You're still telling a player how the character thinks though. I don't think this is something the DM can do.

no I'm telling them what happend

You're controlling how a character thinks and acts - intimidated - and using the ability check to justify that control. If it's something your players are okay with, that's cool. It just wouldn't happen at my table.

they are still in control just like real life... in real life you don't 'decide to not be intimadated' you either are or are not (hence the die roll) then how you react is up to you...

Sure, we all want fun games. The question is how to get there. I don't think getting there can include the DM saying how a character thinks or acts.

I don't think that forcing players to ignore part of the rules (social skills) when they want to use them is a way to get a fun reaction either...

 

[JediGamemaster]

When you tell your players that their characters are intimidated or persuaded, then you are taking away their control of those characters.

no I;m not and stop pretending I am doing something wrong! I am running the game telling somone if they know that someone is lying is no different then saying "you don't know about that spell"

or if a player wants to identify a spell in game instead of rolling arcana do you just let them decide what there character thinks "Hey he know it"

 

[JediGamemaster]

I think that in the event the charming rogue successfully deceives the character, the result of the adventurer's action to determine the rogue's truthfulness simply fails. The character is unable to determine the rogue's truthfulness and the player is free to have the character act as if the rogue is telling the truth or lying as he or she sees fit.

As I see it, it's the player describing the action to be adjudicated (discerning truthfulness), not the DM (deceiving).

I disagree if you roll bluff vs insight and the bluff wins or the insight wins it is the same result regardless of if one or the other or both are PCS

 

[pukunui]

being intimidated is a reaction, it is an emotional response no one is in control of it happens or not.

If "intimidated" was one of the listed conditions in the game, I might agree with you. But it's not.

in real life you don't 'decide to not be intimadated' you either are or are not (hence the die roll) then how you react is up to you...

I'm not sure I agree with you on that. I think being intimidated *is* a choice. It might be a subconscious one for many people, but it's still a choice. But I don't think debating how intimidation works in the real world is going to get us anywhere in terms of how it works in the game.

I don't think that forcing players to ignore part of the rules (social skills) when they want to use them is a way to get a fun reaction either...

Have your players actually asked you to use your NPCs' social skills on their PCs? How do you know that that's what they want?

 

[iserith]

being intimidated is a reaction, it is an emotional response no one is in control of it happens or not. Knowing if someone is lying is no different then knowing the magic words with arcana... they are skills that are rolled or not.

In my view, when it comes to D&D, the players are in full control of their characters. The player determines if the response the character has was within the character's control or not, if they wish to establish that e.g. "True to his cowardly nature, Sneaky Pete reflexively readies himself to bolt if blades are drawn..." It would be equally fine at my table if the player said "Sneaky Pete is cowardly, but this mission is important enough that he overcomes and stands up to the guard..."

no... there is no correct way to be intimidated... it is up to you knowing you are...

If you believe that players are the ones who determine how their characters think, act, and what they say, then the DM can't say that they are "intimidated." The DM may only describe what the NPC does. The player decides the results where the character is concerned.

no I'm telling them what happend

...by telling them how their characters think and act - "intimidated."

they are still in control just like real life... in real life you don't 'decide to not be intimadated' you either are or are not (hence the die roll) then how you react is up to you...

This isn't real life. Players control their own characters completely, at least at my table.

I don't think that forcing players to ignore part of the rules (social skills) when they want to use them is a way to get a fun reaction either...

I'm not ignoring the rules, nor forcing players to ignore them. What would make you say that?