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

[JediGamemaster]

The game's designers.

please point that out then...

you know what never mind. You play different games then I do... what ever...

 

[iserith]

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

As I read the rules and play the game, players have skills on their character to resolve uncertainty the DM establishes. But since a player controls how the character thinks, acts, and what he or she says, there is no uncertainty. The character certainly thinks, tries to act, or says whatever the player describes.

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...

We can stop discussing it further if you like, but I see no reason to get mad. I'm not trying to convince you my way is "right." In fact, I've said many times that you should do whatever works for you and your players (see upthread). I'm just explaining how I do things. Maybe it's useful to some.

Good luck.

 

[JediGamemaster]

As I read the rules and play the game, players have skills on their character to resolve uncertainty the DM establishes. But since a player controls how the character thinks, acts, and what he or she says, there is no uncertainty. The character certainly thinks, tries to act, or says whatever the player describes.

I actually agree with everything you say here, I just think the quastions of "can I tell if he's lying" and "is that intimidating" to be things that sometimes need roles and rules

We can stop discussing it further if you like, but I see no reason to get mad.

it's not you I'm getting mad at it's the other guy but I think I need to calm down anyway..

I'm not trying to convince you my way is "right." In fact, I've said many times that you should do whatever works for you and your players (see upthread). I'm just explaining how I do things. Maybe it's useful to some.

as am I until people come in and accuse me of forcing things on my players

Good luck.

ditto

 

[iserith]

I actually agree with everything you say here, I just think the quastions of "can I tell if he's lying" and "is that intimidating" to be things that sometimes need roles and rules

I think so, too. But those rules and rolls only come into play in my game where there is uncertainty. I don't see uncertainty in how a PC acts. The player decides with certainty what that is.

I also don't like it when players ask questions of the DM in my game, but that's a different thing altogether... and sleep calls.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I will only say that "You can't tell whether he is lying or not" or generally telling your players before even starting to play "If you fail an insight check, you will always believe it is the truth", will result in much less trouble because then there's no risk that they metagame ("I lost the roll so it's the opposite of what the DM tells me") and no necessity for the DM to restrict the player actions ("Hey, you believed him, why do you try to kill him anyway?").

 

[S'mon]

1. You are unable to get a read on him.
2. I would describe how tough the guard looks with the implication that it might not be a good idea to mess with them.
3. I would say something like 'well this is the going rate for this sort of quest, and the magistrate knows it.'

With the exception of charm or compulsion effects I don't think it is a good idea to take away player agency. I think it is completely okay to change the way they might approach a scene by describing it in a way that matches what their character perceives or knows.

That's how I run it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

The way I see it: The players decide their character's actions and the DM presents to the player how their character sees the world and how their intended actions resolve.

Given that: Social skill use vs the characters changes how they perceive the world. The liar is believable, but that doesn't mean you have to act on what he says. The guard seems more dangerous than he actually is. The magistrate presents a quest that is straightforward and simple that aligns with the party's goals.

Same goes the other direction: the NPC might find you believable, but he could still be so cagey he won't trust you without absolute proof. The guard is worried you might kill him, but that doesn't mean he backs down, just that he takes more serious precautions. The magistrate is convinced that the job is more difficult than he first thought, but he doesn't necessarily have more money to pay.

 

[Guest 6801328]

in 2007 I was at gen con and played in a big huge 15 player game and we got intimidated by a demon thing and none of us had a problem....

Out of curiosity was it a skill roll, or an innate spell-like ability like Fear? And what was the mechanical result of being intimidated?

Because there isn't a pre-determined mechanical effect of being intimidated. If there were then I would say, "Ok, we need to roll for that." But it's purely a roleplaying effect. I don't understand how one can use a dice-rolling mechanic to dictate a roleplaying result.

It works for a player to use it on an NPC because again the DM has perfect knowledge of both the PCs and the NPCs capabilities.

 

[Celtavian]

I always let the players decide. I tell them he seems to be telling the truth. I do this for Deception and Persuasion. If a player is intimidated, he'll get the frightened condition until he saves against the enemies intimidation check. That's how I run it.

Then again I also handwave rolling if the player comes up with a very convincing and persuasive argument or lie or at least give advantage. I like to reward good role-playing with automatic or a very favorable success chance.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Insight as lie-detector is a interesting debate but it's a different question than I posed in the OP. Insight used this way determines what the character knows. Just like Arcana or History or Nature checks. I don't see that as any different from "you know how to swing a sword so well that you get +5 with it."

Telling a player "you feel intimidated" or "he persuaded you" is dictating what a character thinks. And I just believe that belongs exclusively to the player.