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

[MG.0]

MG.0,

I was just going to note that as soon as you move to a game involving dice, the question becomes what is the scope of what the dice control. Otherwise, you are just playing a diceless roleplaying game (which is also fine!).

For example, some people believe that a "sanity" mechanic has no place in games. After all, a player should get to choose if the PC is sufficiently ... in awe of the events around them.

You can make the same argument for intimidation. The DM rolls the intimidation check, the PC succeeds/fails, and then the PC decides how he reacts based on the success/failure.

Some DMs don't use checks *at all* for roleplaying- the PC doesn't get to roll to intimidate, the NPCs don't either. Some let the PCs only, and some, apparently, let the PCs and the NPCs roll. There is no right or wrong- just what works for that table. I am not sure it is tremendously helpful to describe a universal "How to play roleplaying game" that isn't accurate for other people. But if it works for you, that's great!

Sure, with roleplaying games there are almost no universal truths, but what I listed is intrinsic to every game I've ever been part of. I would not participate in any game which takes it upon the dice to tell a player what his character wants* to do. To reduce characters to a bunch of stats that wholly describe their actions is to destroy any meaningful input from the player. While players are playing characters, they must not be subservient to it (the character) or you might as well be pushing checkers around a board. To remove the player from the choices their character makes is to break the game on a fundamental level.


Edit:

*In my list, the player's decision comes before any dice are involved.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I use this all the time. The price for ignoring these states is disadvantage to checks associated with the given social interaction.

[Player, just Intimidated by an Orc Chief] ... "Heh, he doesn't scare me that much. I attack!"
[DM, me] "Well, like it or not, his steely glare and jagged sword did dent your courage a bit. Roll with disadvantage."

 

[MG.0]

That's fine. There is no wrong about the expression of preference. That said, it is better to express personal preference rather than to prescribe universal truths on others. As you are doubtlessly aware, there are other RPGs that vary between completely diceless and enforced social mechanics via dicerolling; the beauty of D&D is that you can incorporate aspects of either continuum into your gamestyle.

While your preference is strong, that doesn't mean it is correct for everyone.

Sure, anyone can play however they like. Although again, I would never play in such a game as the OP described as it is so far removed from the D&D I have always known as to be unrecognizable. Yes there are RPG's such as you describe, but they have never been D&D.

I know my preferences are heavily influenced by the early editions of D&D, as I've played since 1980. My post wasn't an attempt to say "You must play this way", although it definitely could be read as "You must play this way if you want me to play".

Rather I posted because I do think it important to express to new players (which I took the OP to be) how D&D play was originally conceived. I used to play a lot and attend Gen Con over 25 years ago and never saw anyone, including the game creators, play the way the OP described. I did sit out through 3rd and 4th editions as they are not to my taste and perhaps later generations of players have different ideas. To me, 5th has brought back something that I think has been missing from D&D for some time.

Call me old school, but I still believe a lot of what was written in 1st edition is still relevant today. From the 1st edition DMG, pg 9:

A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually ob-
tained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to
hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school
and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the
latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author’s opinion an
absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to
simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first
and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use
imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not inter-
fere with the flow of the gome that the highest degree of realism hasn‘t
been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In
all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to
be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few
hours or consume endless days, as the porticiponts desire, but in no case
something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating
fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the
realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient
warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure.
Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to
create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and
villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally
believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to
their taste.

Of course, your mileage may vary...(especially if you drive a Volkswagen, apparently)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[MG.0]

We started in similar times (I just moved from 1e to 5e, myself). Personally, I don't like the rolled social mechanics in 5e, and insist on roleplaying the encounters. Put another way- I didn't need to roll intimidate, or deceive, in 1e, and I'm not going to start now. So I think we are in agreement as to what style of play is preferable. But I can also understand where other people might have a different view. So long as it isn't sanctioned tournament play, who cares? I just think it is best to express, on threads like this, a post like your last one- what works for your table, and why. For example, my table happens to prefer "theater of the mind" combat, but that is, more and more, a minority view. And that's okay! I don't need to change others, and they don't need to change me.

Agreed.

I've always preferred "theater of the mind" too. Miniatures look cool, but in my experience they slow the game down and tend to adversely limit player's imaginations to what they see on the table. That said, I run a game for a large group of players that were newbies when we started. We tried playing both with and without miniatures. They didn't really seem to have a preference, so we eventually dropped using miniatures for all except specific occasions.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I use this all the time. The price for ignoring these states is disadvantage to checks associated with the given social interaction.

[Player, just Intimidated by an Orc Chief] ... "Heh, he doesn't scare me that much. I attack!"
[DM, me] "Well, like it or not, his steely glare and jagged sword did dent your courage a bit. Roll with disadvantage."

I'd be very unhappy with the free fear effect on that. Do your players always use an attempt at intimidate at the start of every encounter?

 

[Campbell]

There are totally ways to structure mechanics around these things that preserve a degree of player choice. One way is to utilize a bribery mechanic (inspiration or xp if they go along). Another way is to utilize a resource players can spend to disregard this stuff. For intimidation you can use a consequence based procedure - go along or he gets a free attack against you. One way to model checks against deception that's interesting is to make it about the entire conversation - you know you are being lied to in general, but not about what. People usually pepper their lies with truths.

 

[steenan]

The simplest way of handling social rolls is setting (and negotiating, if necessary) clear stakes before the roll is made. This way, the player buy-in for whatever the result is guaranteed first and then the situation is resolved mechanically. Of course, this means that rolls are only made when each side has something to win.

"Ok. If you want to make sure that he's honest, you may roll Insight against his Bluff. But if you fail, you're gonna buy his story with no second thoughts. Is that fine?"



There are also other ways, but they depend more on system specifics.

For example, in Fate Core, if an NPC successfully intimidates a PC, it probably creates an aspect like "shaken" and the NPC gets a free invocation of this aspect. It may then be used to hinder a PC's action, giving +2 to the NPC's roll. The GM may also compel the aspect - offer the player a fate point for following a specific course of action in line with the aspect ("You're deeply shaken by her words. It seems natural that in this state you wouldn't like to face her in combat. I''ll give you a fate point if you just flee."). The player may then accept the compel or pay one of his fate points to refuse it.
Of course, the player will run out of fate points sooner or later if they keep refusing. But if they really want their character to conquer fear in the given scene, they are free to do it.


In Urban Shadows, the MC never rolls. If an NPC wants to intimidate a PC and has means to do it (is armed, has friends, knows the PC's dangerous secret etc.), they just do. If the player wants their PC to keep their cool instead of being scared, there is a roll for it. Depending on the result, they may succeed (which means not only that they aren't acting scared, but they also avoid the problem the NPC wanted to get them in), they may succeed with a cost (the MC sets the cost and the player either accepts or refuses) or they may fail.
The failure gives the MC a lot of freedom in declaring the consequences, as long as they are in line with the fiction. So if the NPC intimidated my character with a gun, I tried to play it cool and failed, my character is probably getting shot. But the MC may as well raise the stakes by revealing that the NPC has also kidnapped my father (as long as it doesn't contradict something that happened earlier in play), or something like that.