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

[JediGamemaster]

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.

I don't tell people how to think or act I don't know how planer to say it... you use adjatives to try to clue your players in on mechanics I just come out and state mechanics we then BOTH let the player RP his character step 1 and end result 3 the exact same but step 2 different... stop pretending that result 3 is any different...

 

[JediGamemaster]

OK, I took a piss break and now am going to try again [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]... imagine a game where you want to have an orc try to intimidate the players, and think he should have a chance... have that scenero in your mind and think about everything you say and do. You don't force the players to act or play or declair anything, but you set up the scene with clues (some little and sutble and some heavier) at the end you are trying to get across to the "He is intimidating" but you let them choose how to react...

I think that's how you do it... me too, but with less words. Instead of describing a huge long scene, I tell them the number I rolled... the end result
let them choose how to react...
is the same, but I get to it differently...

 

[Sunseeker]

As a supplemental, I don't even let my players roll if they're not going to role in social encounters. They don't have to role hardcore, but they need to do more than:
"I use insight to see if the guy is lying!" Because my response is going to be, regardless of the outcome on the die: "You have no idea if he's lying. Because you never said why you have reason to think that."

 

[iserith]

I don't tell people how to think or act I don't know how planer to say it... you use adjatives to try to clue your players in on mechanics I just come out and state mechanics we then BOTH let the player RP his character step 1 and end result 3 the exact same but step 2 different... stop pretending that result 3 is any different...

I describe the environment. I'm not telegraphing mechanics in the doing. An action is not a check. A check is not an action. A check is a mechanic used to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a fictional action. It is not an action in and of itself. If someone has played a lot of D&D 3.Xe, this may be a hard thing to understand because of how that game is structured. It is a subtle, but important distinction.

OK, I took a piss break and now am going to try again @iserith... imagine a game where you want to have an orc try to intimidate the players, and think he should have a chance... have that scenero in your mind and think about everything you say and do. You don't force the players to act or play or declair anything, but you set up the scene with clues (some little and sutble and some heavier) at the end you are trying to get across to the "He is intimidating" but you let them choose how to react...

I think that's how you do it... me too, but with less words. Instead of describing a huge long scene, I tell them the number I rolled... the end result
let them choose how to react...
is the same, but I get to it differently...

I've given numerous examples of how I describe the environment. In the case of the orc, I describe the orc, in effect, as trying to be intimidating. Whether it succeeds or fails at doing so (where the characters are concerned) is entirely up to the players to decide. There is no uncertainty the DM can establish. Because that is the case, there is no need for an ability check here in my view.

 

[JediGamemaster]

I've given numerous examples of how I describe the environment. In the case of the orc, I describe the orc, in effect, as trying to be intimidating. Whether it succeeds or fails at doing so (where the characters are concerned) is entirely up to the players to decide. There is no uncertainty the DM can establish. Because that is the case, there is no need for an ability check here in my view.

it is your view mine is different, I can use your way or mine, but with my current players your way would not work. Neither is right or wrong an neaither takes anything away from the game///

 

[iserith]

As a supplemental, I don't even let my players roll if they're not going to role in social encounters. They don't have to role hardcore, but they need to do more than:
"I use insight to see if the guy is lying!" Because my response is going to be, regardless of the outcome on the die: "You have no idea if he's lying. Because you never said why you have reason to think that."

I mentioned this upthread, but why would a player even want to roll? When I'm told I need to roll, I know it's because I failed to achieve outright success (or dodged outright failure). I'm always shooting for the former. I would never ask to roll. I'd rather rob randomness of its power and just succeed.

There might be a case where a given DM only allows characters to do something if they roll for it. In which case, I can see players skipping ahead to the roll. Of course, the DMG warns against how this sort of play can diminish roleplaying because the dice, rather than the players' decisions and characterizations, always decide what happens.

 

[Dragonsbane]

We use them in all NPC interactions, I have players roll an "offensive" roll (Cha/Persuasion/Intimidate/Deception) depending on how they plan to RP it, and a Insight roll to counter the NPC rolls as well as possibly tell the PCs about a flaw/ideal/bond of the NPC for possible advantage during RP. If they get a really low roll they have the option to RP it that way, and usually do. After all, the scores should have an affect to give advantage to those who take those skills and use them? Our game is 1/3 RP 1/3 combat 1/3 exploration, so some people are good at different parts

 

[iserith]

it is your view mine is different, I can use your way or mine, but with my current players your way would not work. Neither is right or wrong an neaither takes anything away from the game///

I don't judge how you want to play your game. Enjoy!

You asked me if I thought your reading was correct. I said I did not think it was for reasons already stated. That is not the same as saying you're playing wrong.

 

[Sunseeker]

I mentioned this upthread, but why would a player even want to roll? When I'm told I need to roll, I know it's because I failed to achieve outright success (or dodged outright failure). I'm always shooting for the former. I would never ask to roll. I'd rather rob randomness of its power and just succeed.

There might be a case where a given DM only allows characters to do something if they roll for it. In which case, I can see players skipping ahead to the roll. Of course, the DMG warns against how this sort of play can diminish roleplaying because the dice, rather than the players' decisions and characterizations, always decide what happens.

I think largely because D&D has traditionally been more of a roll-play game than a role-play game and in order to function it trains people to assume they did not succeed unless the dice say they do.

 

[Remathilis]

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?

Let me answer as both a DM and a Player.
Scenario 1: The obvious way to phrase this is not "that you believe him" but "you have no reason to NOT believe him". He has no tells, no ques, no outward displays of insincerity that you can determine. That said, there are lots of people I don't believe even though they give me no reason to disbelieve them either. As a player, I want the option to say "There's something funny about that guy, but I can't put my finger on it", and as a DM, I reserve a similar right to say "Ok, you might have rolled a 22 on deception, but nobody fully believes you're really a gold dragon polymorphed into a halfling".

Scenario 2: This is trickier. Rather than say "you are intimidated" I'd play up the "he's threatening you looks like he can back up those threats". In essence, the result isn't to see how the PC reacts, but how well the performance does: a guy who rolls an 18 keeps a subtle menace that shows he's capable of making life difficult (and do you want to bother with that hassle?) vs a 4 which says "this guy is blowing smoke, he's not really all that threatening, but he may yet be dangerous". The roll then measures the intimidators act, not the recipients reaction. As a player, if he tried to tell me I couldn't act or was fearful/cowed because of it, we'd have a major problem.

Scenario 3: Never never never would a skill check force a PC to accept (or deny) something they want to do. At best, this becomes a role-playing tool; it might influence their action, but never dictate it. The magistrate might be sincere in his beliefs, but ultimately the PC must decide to accept or deny. As a player, I might consider his words more thoroughly, but in the end I'm still deciding if I want to do it or not.

The big thing here is (and this based on my group, who are good sports on these things usually) the check never determines action, but it can influence it. An intimidated PC can still pick a fight with the guard or get into a verbal spat with him, but he is fully aware this guy is going to be trouble before he does this. The deceived PC sill can decide not to trust the guy, even if there is no outward sign of deception. The persuaded PC might stop to consider the magistrates words, but its his call to accept or decline the offer. Of course, the reverse it true for me as well; I can decide an intimidated monster might not give up or be bullied, a deceived NPC might not fully buy a PCs outlandish story, or a persuaded noble isn't going to empty his entire coffers on a sob-story.