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

[iserith]

that is why your wrong here

I showed you the relevant section of the rules. You may not choose to use those rules and that's fine, but it doesn't make me "wrong." I choose to use those rules alongside the rules for ability checks.

no I'm not... stop saying that... I have not told anyone how to think or act they used a skill or a skill was used on them and this is what happened.

Skills as a mechanic are not "used" on someone or something. Ability checks are used to resolve uncertainty when it comes to fictional actions undertaken by the characters (or monsters).

why would you need an effect, the whole thing is role played you just need a roll to see. It isn't "How well I can describe the orc" it's "The character (PC or NPC) in game has a skill and is using it."

Again, you don't "use skills." You either (as DM) describe the environment or (as player) describe what you want to do and that doesn't include asking to make ability checks since the DM determines that. The DM decides whether uncertainty exists as to the outcome and calls for an ability check. If there is no uncertainty, there is no ability check and thus no roll. Since the player is in full control of how the character thinks, acts, and talks, there is no uncertainty as to a monster's fictional action in this regard. Let me break it down further for you:

"The orc lets out a vicious war cry and brandishes his greataxe..." <-- Approach
"...in an effort to intimidate you into surrendering." <-- Goal

Now the DM has to determine whether this is successful, fails, or has an uncertain outcome. Only the DM can't do that, according to the rules, because it's up to the players to decide how to respond. Since in this case the DM cannot establish uncertainty, the DM doesn't call for an ability check to test the orc's attempt at intimidation.

 

[the Jester]

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."

This isn't how I do this. For one thing, the player doesn't get to know the result of either the npc's Deception check nor his own Insight check. For me, it would be more like this:

Player: "I think he's lying."
DM: "What is your bonus to Wisdom (Insight)?"
Player: "Um... zero."
DM: "Okay." *rolls* "It sounds pretty believable to you. Seems to fit with what you know about him and his motivations."
Player: "Huh. Okay."

The player might still be suspicious, but that's okay.

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

In my game:

DM: "The guard glares at you. He got an 18 on a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Use that to inform your roleplaying."
Player: "Oh, ok I guess I'll just keep moving then."

I might use dis/advantage in this case under some circumstances, as others have suggested. I am more likely to award a pc inspiration for roleplaying this way, though.

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."

In my game:

Player: "I don't think I want to do this quest for only 100 gold."
DM: "The magistrate rolls Persuade and gets a total of 22. You can use that to inform your roleplaying."
Player: "Okay, looks like I'll take the quest."

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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?

Nope. Here's mine...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Player: "I think he's lying"
DM: "What's your Insight bonus?"
Player: "+2"
DM: ...rolls secretly behind my DM screen...getting a 2 for PC's Insight; roll again for NPC Deception...getting a 12...
DM: "Seems reasonable to you"
Player: "Oh. Uh...ok...hmmm. Well guys, seems like and up and up guy to me"

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
DM: "The guard leans in closely and calmly...almost too calmly... says, in a soft voice... I REALLY don't think you want to test me on this...you have enemies you can't see and don't know about...but I DO know them..."
Player: "...uh... do I see anything around me?"
DM: "You do notice someone in dark clothes just turn down an ally. And you're pretty sure that a rather petite woman selling tinder just down the street keeps looking at you...she moves like she's not used to dealing with people. The guard gives an ever so slight smile, then says Just watch who you insult is my advice to you...".

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Player: "I don't think I want to do this quest for 100gp"
DM: "The magistrate says he understands, and that, while he can only scrounge up another 20gp to add, he would be willing to owe you a favour. He reiterates that he is the magistrate, and so he has access to knowledge about people, places and other goings on in the town and county. He may be able to swing more lucrative work for you sometime in the future...if you are willing".
Player: "Hmmm... I suppose that sounds ok. 120gp now for this, and maybe something bigger and better later. Sure, I'll do it!"


Basically, for rolls where the outcome of a visible die roll would give the player info he/she doesn't have...I roll.

Most other "RP-affecting" skills used against a PC are simply not used. So a NPC can't "Intimidate" a PC by just making a die roll. Sometimes I will roll and state "He's obviously trying to intimidate you...he gets an 18", and leave it up to the Player to RP just how successful that is on his PC. My players are pretty good at taking these and running with them in a believable manner, as opposed to just ignoring it all together.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[iserith]

I think skill checks should apply against PCs - they are effectively non-magical saving throws. Otherwise it's no wonder that some players bleat on about how mental stats are dump stats for non-casters (except insofar as wisdom applies to perception and saves). A dumb PC is not as smart as his player. A cowardly PC is not as brave as his player. The stats and skill traning should mean something.

A PC with low "mental stats" is as smart as his or her player chooses to play the character in my view. When the player chooses to do something the DM thinks has an uncertain outcome, the stats and training are reflected in the resolution mechanic. Such a PC might not succeed very often at recalling lore, picking up on lies, or convincing the king to help, when the outcomes of those actions are uncertain.

If a player chooses a personality trait or flaw that amounts to "I'm as smart as a bag of hair..." and plays to that trait or flaw, I think that's worth Inspiration. Otherwise, I don't care how players choose to play their character so long as they are acting in a way that is fun for everyone and helps create an exciting, memorable story.

 

[JediGamemaster]

I showed you the relevant section of the rules. You may not choose to use those rules and that's fine, but it doesn't make me "wrong." I choose to use those rules alongside the rules for ability checks.

that isn't why your wrong, your free to see it that way, whats wrong is you can't see why I read the rules differently... you think your right and I'm wrong but it's ok for me to be wrong when you should be able to see that it isn't me being wrong...

 

[iserith]

that isn't why your wrong, your free to see it that way, whats wrong is you can't see why I read the rules differently... you think your right and I'm wrong but it's ok for me to be wrong when you should be able to see that it isn't me being wrong...

I see your reading of the rules as essentially ignoring what I quoted from page 66. Your interpretation is, in my view, missing a very important element with regards to roleplaying and player agency. As far as the rules themselves are concerned, that is. You're free to ignore those rules if that's what you and your players find more fun, of course. You don't need any justification or validation for playing the way you want to play.

 

[JediGamemaster]

I see your reading of the rules as essentially ignoring what I quoted from page 66. Your interpretation is, in my view, missing a very important element with regards to roleplaying and player agency. As far as the rules themselves are concerned, that is. You're free to ignore those rules if that's what you and your players find more fun, of course. You don't need any justification or validation for playing the way you want to play.

You are being very much a pain about this, I am not ignoreing any rules, not any more then you are, and the worst part is I bet you would never complain about 'agency' in a game ran like mine except you want to prove a point. I have never in my life seen anyone make the complaint you are AND actually play through the game... you have it in your mind that I stand over my players like a dictator yelling "DO it my way" and that isn't farther from the truth...

I in no way infringe on any of my players ever

edit: you aren't even argueing against me anymore, but some horrable DM you made up in your mind

 

[Sunseeker]

For me, mental stats are the filter between the player and the game. Your roll+stats+proficiencies=how well your role-play translates into the game. Making the best argument in the world for helping old ladies doesn't come across too well when you roll a 3.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Any reactions?

5e gives DMs tremendous latitude with these sorts of things. Ultimately, though, players make choices about their characters, they aren't their characters.

That's it, that was my initial reaction.

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

They look like caricatures of an RP style made to get a point across, so I'd guess pretty near 0 /actually/ play exactly that way. How many play in the range of styles you might be alluding to, to varying degrees, IDK, depends on how serious we're being...

5e certainly presents mechanics that could be used to influence PCs, especially if PCs aren't taken as being in any way 'special' (which supposedly is an assumption 5e backed away from).

How that's presented and RP'd would depend on the table. For instance, if a DM is having an NPC deceive your character he might just give you false information, if you asked if you noticed anything suspicious about the story, he might tell you that your character doesn't know or notice anything to make him think the character is lying, tell you some more details that could make you suspicious, or call for a check to decide between the two (and the check might be 'opposed' by the NPCs deception or have a DC based on it - and the DM might even make it secretly).

So, in some cases, your character is not going to know he's being lied to. How you deal with that is up to you. If you have some meta-game reason to believe the character might be lying, or just know your DM well enough to suspect that's what's happening, you can have your PC react according to those opinions, instead of strictly to the information he has. You could have your PC react according to what you think would 'make the best story,' instead. Some would-be theorists like to label different approaches like that. I believe the last one would be 'author stance,' for instance.

In the case of undesirable influence that might involve saving throws or contested checks because DM fiat in a case like that can be a little hard to take (though it's allowed, the DM could just say "you are all shocked to see Dirk Blackpool alive, his goons have surprise" and that'd be that: you're shocked whether you think you should be or not).

In the case of positive influence the effect would likely be voluntary.

I can't find anything that says "This only works from players to NPCs" or "NPCs can't use these skills" or anything like it,

That's the kind of thing 5e likes to leave to "rulings, not rules."

that isn't why your wrong, your free to see it that way, whats wrong is you can't see why I read the rules differently... you think your right and I'm wrong but it's ok for me to be wrong when you should be able to see that it isn't me being wrong...

It's 5e, there is no right or wrong interpretation of what a rule really says, there's just DM rulings. If some interpretation of the rule doesn't agree with a DM ruling, the DM ruling stands. If the rules inescapably disagree with a DM ruling, the DM ruling stands.

Try to imagine Neo saying "There is no RAW."

 

[iserith]

You are being very much a pain about this, I am not ignoreing any rules, not any more then you are, and the worst part is I bet you would never complain about 'agency' in a game ran like mine except you want to prove a point. I have never in my life seen anyone make the complaint you are AND actually play through the game... you have it in your mind that I stand over my players like a dictator yelling "DO it my way" and that isn't farther from the truth...

I in no way infringe on any of my players ever

Please do not presume to speak to what I do or don't have in my mind. I only have your words to go by. You have stated you tell your players that their characters are "intimidated" or words to that effect which I view as the DM telling the player how his or her character thinks or acts - intimidated. If you did that while DMing a game for me, I would not care for it for the reasons stated and would let you know that in a direct but polite manner after the game.