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

[JediGamemaster]

Ability checks are used to resolve uncertainty. If you believe that the players are in control of how their characters react to an NPC's attempt to deceive, intimidate, or persuade them, then there is no uncertainty as the players say what happens. Because there is no uncertainty, there is no ability check.

the uncertainty is they don't know how intimidating the creature is... we roll to see...

 

[Jaelommiss]

I run it with a very simple, very open technique.

Suppose the party is low on resources, HP, and has an unconscious character. They are surrounded by orcs and looking at probably defeat. The orc captain will tell them to lay down their weapons or they will be torn to shreds. His intimidate check came up as 16+3. I will then tell the party "He rolled a 19 for intimidate. Act as you will, but be aware that I might use your response as a guide for determining the DC for frightening future enemies into surrender. Tell me what motivates your decision."

Some players will use Wisdom saves or character traits as justify why they keep fighting. Others might accept that they are frightened in this instance and surrender. Others still might declare that they will continue fighting because there was no mechanical consequence. I allow the PCs to choose freely. Doing this several times will eventually give me a spectrum of results to consider.

Three sessions later when they try to intimidate their enemies into surrendering and roll a 17 I will remember how the party responded here. If the players have decided that an intimidate roll of 19 will not cow even the most outmaneuvered, outnumbered, and wounded of groups, then the rest of the world will be brought in line with that. If they decided that making a Wisdom save with a DC equal to the intimidate check is appropriate, then that's how NPCs across the world will be treated.

 

[pukunui]

... how do we do that in D&D again... oh right dice

Not when it's between two players.

 

[JediGamemaster]

Not when it's between two players.

says who?

 

[iserith]

ok lets say 2 PCs want to do different things, one goes to the prince and makes a deal behind the other PCs back and then when he tries to lie to the PC they know out of game (they are all at the table) so it comes down to a skill roll because it is unknown variable then you roll and one PC wins

Not at my table. Presuming we're even playing a game where character are acting somewhat at odds in the manner you describe, there is no roll at all since both players are in control of how they react. The conniving PC is confronted and lies. The confronting PC decides whether he or she believes the conniving PC. If they're both acting in good faith, it should go somewhere interesting.

 

[JediGamemaster]

I run it with a very simple, very open technique.

Suppose the party is low on resources, HP, and has an unconscious character. They are surrounded by orcs and looking at probably defeat. The orc captain will tell them to lay down their weapons or they will be torn to shreds. His intimidate check came up as 16+3. I will then tell the party "He rolled a 19 for intimidate. Act as you will, but be aware that I might use your response as a guide for determining the DC for frightening future enemies into surrender. Tell me what motivates your decision."

Some players will use Wisdom saves or character traits as justify why they keep fighting. Others might accept that they are frightened in this instance and surrender. Others still might declare that they will continue fighting because there was no mechanical consequence. I allow the PCs to choose freely. Doing this several times will eventually give me a spectrum of results to consider.

Three sessions later when they try to intimidate their enemies into surrendering and roll a 17 I will remember how the party responded here. If the players have decided that an intimidate roll of 19 will not cow even the most outmaneuvered, outnumbered, and wounded of groups, then the rest of the world will be brought in line with that. If they decided that making a Wisdom save with a DC equal to the intimidate check is appropriate, then that's how NPCs across the world will be treated.

yup... good for the goose good for the gander

 

[JediGamemaster]

Not at my table. Presuming we're even playing a game where character are acting somewhat at odds in the manner you describe, there is no roll at all since both players are in control of how they react. The conniving PC is confronted and lies. The confronting PC decides whether he or she believes the conniving PC. If they're both acting in good faith, it should go somewhere interesting.

not at any game I have ever seen... players have skills for a reason. then again the most likely way it will go is "Can I check to see if he's lying" turning into a insight vs bluff

 

[iserith]

the uncertainty is they don't know how intimidating the creature is... we roll to see...

Players judge that based on the description the DM provided when framing the scene and describe what they want to do accordingly. There is no roll required here in my view because the DM does not have uncertainty as to the outcome - the players decide the outcome.

 

[pukunui]

says who?

The game's designers.

 

[JediGamemaster]

Players judge that based on the description the DM provided when framing the scene and describe what they want to do accordingly. There is no roll required here in my view because the DM does not have uncertainty as to the outcome - the players decide the outcome.

I disagree and this is where we need to stop... your games don't use skills the same way mine do, there is nothing to be gained other then one of us getting mad now. If you or any of the others have a question on how something works in my game I will gladly tellyou how we play but please stop trying to convince me your way is right.

I have no quastions on how your games run...