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

[iserith]

well I guess no one can claim anyone is misreading or not using the rules since the maker of the game agrees with it...

I can and do regardless of what he said. As far as I am concerned, he too is overlooking the importance of page 66 with regard to players being the ones who determine how their characters thinks, act, and what they say. This section taken with the rules for ability checks tell me the DM may describe how a monster tries to intimidate a character, but the player says whether or not the character is intimidated.

The tweeted response doesn't even make much fictional sense. A monster is trying to intimidate you so your response to its intimidation tactics is to try and determine its true intentions by reading its body language (Insight)? Or to attempt to influence it with tact, social graces, or good nature (Persuasion)? Also, he references "Diplomacy," which isn't even a thing in D&D 5e - I'm being charitable by assuming he meant "Persuasion." I don't see how either of these ability checks apply in any blanket sense.

I could see a player trying to read a monster's body language and mannerisms to determine if the monster is actually a threat, but this is an action on the part of the character to gather information to make a decision in the face of the DM describing the monster's attempt to be intimidating, not an opposed ability check to avoid being "intimidated." The monster's Charisma (Intimidation) check might then oppose the character's Wisdom (Insight check) as a way of setting a DC. This would be consistent with the rules in my view.

In any case, if that particular designer and his players (or anyone else) like to roll dice to determine how a character thinks or acts, then they should keep at it. It will never be something I do at my table.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think he is just interpreting it that NPCs using Intimidation/Persuasion/Deception on players is perfectly valid, and if that's how you choose to play he is suggesting how to resist it.

I think the tenor of the message suggests he personally doesn't play that way, as he seems to be making it up on the fly, but whoever earlier in this thread wrote that it's "Rulings, not Rules" got it right.

This would go into the same category as "Does your character know to use fire on trolls?" Both ways are "legal", it's all in how you choose to play.

 

[JediGamemaster]

I can and do regardless of what he said. As far as I am concerned, he too is overlooking the importance of page 66 with regard to players being the ones who determine how their characters thinks, act, and what they say. This section taken with the rules for ability checks tell me the DM may describe how a monster tries to intimidate a character, but the player says whether or not the character is intimidated.

you just wont give up with this "your wrong thing..."

This would go into the same category as "Does your character know to use fire on trolls?" Both ways are "legal", it's all in how you choose to play.

sounds good to me...

In any case, if that particular designer and his players (or anyone else) like to roll dice to determine how a character thinks or acts, then they should keep at it. It will never be something I do at my table.

I think I'm the only one who suggested you use it, and it was totally 'try it before you diss it' not 'you should do it all the time'

 

[Eric V]

well I like talking to you because you realize that in an RPG there is no real right or wrong way to play...

Really? Interesting...

 

[iserith]

you just wont give up with this "your wrong thing..."

You're not wrong for playing the way you want to play. Keep doing that - enjoy!

I think I'm the only one who suggested you use it, and it was totally 'try it before you diss it' not 'you should do it all the time'

I have done it - in D&D 3.Xe. I don't think it's a fit for D&D 5e.

 

[Pssthpok]

The idea that the DM can make a party accept a quest because they rolled well in a skill contest seems to run counter to the primary notion of the game, namely the dialectic between players and the DM.
Success in Charisma-related skill checks and contests for NPCs doesn't function as a dominate person spell.

So, to the examples:

1) Seeing through a lie with Insight... if you roll low, all you have is slightly less uncertainty that before you rolled. Even if you roll exceptionally well, a 20 isn't an auto-success so you just ablate more uncertainty than with low rolls.

2) Being Intimidated by an NPC... Intimidate isn't a skill but unfortunately it keeps showing up in the PHBs. Here's how I see it: with "Intimidate", you're either trying to convince someone that your threat is credible when it really isn't (Deception) or when it really is (Persuasion). There's no room for Intimidation as a skill... but, with that said... the dialectic between the PCs and the DM obviates this issue. All the DM has to do is say "Look, the guard is not bluffing. You're sure of it. He is going to go Roadhouse on you all if you don't knock it off." After that, it's up to the players to decide if their DM is lying to them.

3) Being Persuaded to do something you don't want to do... This really strikes to the heart of my comment above: that a win for the DM in a Charisma contest with a PC isn't carte blanche to make the PCs do something they wouldn't normally do. The DM can use the same dialectic from #2 to inform the PCs of something like "Look, the magistrate makes a really compelling case and is a very charming and persuasive individual," thereby giving the PCs a chance to participate in the narrative the DM is trying to foster or not.

Either way, in all three examples, if the players aren't the ones deciding what their characters do, then I feel like the basic social contract of the game has collapsed. Barring enchantments or curses, the DM should only ever be giving PCs information, never direction.

 

[Kalshane]

Deception vs. Insight is pretty much hard-coded into the rules. It seems odd to me that anyone could argue that a PC could claim not to be fooled, regardless of an NPC's (or other PC's) Deception skill. For my own games, I roll both secretly and inform the PC that either he doesn't have any reason to believe the other person is lying, or they think the person is lying. Of course, if a PC asks for an Insight check when someone is telling the truth, and if they roll below a DC 10, I'll tell them they think the person is lying. (Suspicious people mistrust people who are telling them the truth all the time IRL. Hence the existence of various conspiracy theories and innocent folks being imprisoned from time to time.) Allows for some fun RP moments, and prevents the "tell" of Jim, Bob and Greg all think the suave courtier is telling the truth, but Sally thinks he's lying. If by the rules you can only think someone is lying if they actually are and beat their Deception check, all it takes is for one PC to roll well to find someone bending the truth.

As for Persuasion and Intimidation, I wouldn't force a character's behavior (outside of specific feats or character abilities that allow those skills to impose a condition, should they exist) but I would definitely do as others have suggested and have the NPC's roll flavor the description I give the players, allowing them to choose their reactions appropriately.

 

[iserith]

Deception vs. Insight is pretty much hard-coded into the rules. It seems odd to me that anyone could argue that a PC could claim not to be fooled, regardless of an NPC's (or other PC's) Deception skill. For my own games, I roll both secretly and inform the PC that either he doesn't have any reason to believe the other person is lying, or they think the person is lying. Of course, if a PC asks for an Insight check when someone is telling the truth, and if they roll below a DC 10, I'll tell them they think the person is lying. (Suspicious people mistrust people who are telling them the truth all the time IRL. Hence the existence of various conspiracy theories and innocent folks being imprisoned from time to time.) Allows for some fun RP moments, and prevents the "tell" of Jim, Bob and Greg all think the suave courtier is telling the truth, but Sally thinks he's lying. If by the rules you can only think someone is lying if they actually are and beat their Deception check, all it takes is for one PC to roll well to find someone bending the truth.

As for Persuasion and Intimidation, I wouldn't force a character's behavior (outside of specific feats or character abilities that allow those skills to impose a condition, should they exist) but I would definitely do as others have suggested and have the NPC's roll flavor the description I give the players, allowing them to choose their reactions appropriately.

If you're already willing to tell a player how his or her character thinks (e.g. "they think the person is lying"), then why do you draw the line at telling a player how his or her character thinks when it comes to Intimidation or Persuasion?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Pauln6]

If you're already willing to tell a player how his or her character thinks (e.g. "they think the person is lying"), then why do you draw the line at telling a player how his or her character thinks when it comes to Intimidation or Persuasion?

As a DM you have to dictate what PCs see, hear, and know, even including where some PCS spot things and others don't. An experienced player may know everything there is to know about Rakshasas but I would expect him to roleplay his dumb barbarian as if he didn't. I would not expect a player to target a monster if his PC has failed to beat its stealth score. Player should be expected to roleplay (shock). I don't see any disconnect between these situations. This is collaborative storytelling.

I do think there is a distinction between expecting a player to roleplay within certain parameters and dictating behaviour or imposing a condition, like fear or charm, that has very specific controls on a PC though, especially where there are spells that also impose those effects. However, I might impose the fear condition if say a 20 or a 1 was rolled or a failure by more than 5. It would very much depend on how scary the situation was. A warrior facing another warrior on the street is one thing but facing a greater demon in a volcano is another. The possibilities at either end of the scale are potentially different. I don't think there is an absolutely right or wrong approach to this. It depends...

I would argue that a player who has just been intimidated charging in to attack the intimidator as not getting into the spirit of the roleplaying.