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

[Pauln6]

I'm asking this in all seriousness: Do you know what it means when you say "Your character is intimidated?" It means the character is cowed or afraid. That's not for the DM to decide in my view. I decide if the orc's war cry and axe-brandishing makes my character cowed or afraid, short of a magical effect.

No, no, no. Even being under a magical fear effect does not dictate what a PC does, it simply places hard-coded restrictions on what they can't do and gives them some fluff to use for role-playing. Some players will roleplay terror and flee, others will steel their nerves and attack from a distance, within the specific restrictions of the fear effect.

Being intimidated is just a softer version without (necessarily) any hard-coded restrictions. The player still decides how to be intimidated, you are no more dictating how that PC acts than when a cleric of a particular deity chooses a deity based on alignment and the DM expects them to act in accordance with said deity's philosophy.

 

[Hriston]

Folks should read DMG pages 244-245 to understand what these skills are for.

Want an NPC to help you in some way? Use one of these three skills. The DC depends on if they're friendly, hostile, or indifferent.

Want a PC to help you? Talk to them.

 

[Shasarak]

We are trying to give our players the freedom to decide whether their characters are intimidated or not themselves. Instead of forcing their characters be intimidated whether the player likes it or not.

If the Character has been intimidated, why not give the Player the freedom to decide what their characters are doing?

To me that would be a great opportunity for Roleplaying.

 

[iserith]

No, no, no. Even being under a magical fear effect does not dictate what a PC does, it simply places hard-coded restrictions on what they can't do and gives them some fluff to use for role-playing. Some players will roleplay terror and flee, others will steel their nerves and attack from a distance, within the specific restrictions of the fear effect.

Your assertion is disproved by a quick reading of the fear spell. A character affected by this spell is frightened, drops what it is holding, and flees.

I think it's fine if an illusion or enchantment spell dictates the behavior of a player character. In all other cases in my view, the player determines how his or her character thinks and acts.

Being intimidated is just a softer version without (necessarily) any hard-coded restrictions. The player still decides how to be intimidated, you are no more dictating how that PC acts than when a cleric of a particular deity chooses a deity based on alignment and the DM expects them to act in accordance with said deity's philosophy.

By saying the character is "intimidated," the DM is determining how the character thinks and acts - intimidated, cowed, afraid. In my view, it's fine for the DM to describe what the enemy is doing to try and intimidate the PC, but the player says how the character responds. There is no uncertainty as to the result of the enemy's action because the player controls his or her character and makes that determination. Because there is no uncertainty, there is no ability check. If the player has a character with an established flaw or the like of being craven, then choosing to act intimidated, cowed, or afraid in the face of the enemy's attempt at intimidation would earn the player Inspiration.

You're, of course, welcome to run your game as you see fit - there's no wrong way to play after all - but I would never do what you suggest nor play in a game where I was not in control of my character, short of a magical effect.

 

[Pauln6]

Your assertion is disproved by a quick reading of the fear spell. A character affected by this spell is frightened, drops what it is holding, and flees.

I think it's fine if an illusion or enchantment spell dictates the behavior of a player character. In all other cases in my view, the player determines how his or her character thinks and acts.

By saying the character is "intimidated," the DM is determining how the character thinks and acts - intimidated, cowed, afraid. In my view, it's fine for the DM to describe what the enemy is doing to try and intimidate the PC, but the player says how the character responds. There is no uncertainty as to the result of the enemy's action because the player controls his or her character and makes that determination. Because there is no uncertainty, there is no ability check. If the player has a character with an established flaw or the like of being craven, then choosing to act intimidated, cowed, or afraid in the face of the enemy's attempt at intimidation would earn the player Inspiration.

You're, of course, welcome to run your game as you see fit - there's no wrong way to play after all - but I would never do what you suggest nor play in a game where I was not in control of my character, short of a magical effect.

You're right that I was too dogmatic in my example of the Fear spell - a spell that I've never once used in 32 years of play! But my red line seems to be thinner than yours. I think advising players on how a skill roll makes their character feel informs their roleplaying whereas you feel it applies unjustifiable pressure on that player to follow exactly what I say. I can assure you that my players do NOT do do exactly what I say in these scenarios. They roleplay as they see fit.

But based on what you say, the hierarchy seems to be thus:

1. Magical Fear - spell dictates certain actions; player chooses what PC does outside the actions dictated by the spell.
2. Frightened Condition - player chooses what PC does outside the restrictions dictated by the condition. DM may grant inspiration based on roleplay.
3. Intimidated by skill roll - DM provides guidance as to how the NPC skill roll makes the PC feel (based on the total score rolled and assuming that situation and high roll do not impose the frightened condition). Player player chooses what PC does. DM may grant inspiration based on this roleplay. DM may ask player to reconsider or justify an action if desired action appears to disregard the skill roll entirely.

Otherwise why even bother to give monsters skill training in interaction skills? They are clearly intended to have some kind of effect and I don't believe that it was ever intended that this should be solely limited to NPC on NPC action. How often is that even going to be a thing?

Persuasion is far harder to roleplay than intimidate for sure.

I am curious to know though how you would deal with the situation where the player of a cleric chooses to do something that clearly contravenes alignment or religious dogma of the deity? Obviously the player and PC can do what they like and if you are a DM that feels no interference or advice is ever justified, you are equally free to ignore the alignment and deity restrictions. To me the story does have a life of its own so I would feel that the player should be given some advice and feedback to help them understand potential consequences even though I would make it very clear that the choice and the consequences are ultimately down to them and will make a fine story in their own right.

 

[iserith]

You're right that I was too dogmatic in my example of the Fear spell - a spell that I've never once used in 32 years of play! But based on what you say, the hierarchy seems to be thus:

1. Magical Fear - spell dictates certain actions; player chooses what PC does outside the actions dictated by the spell.
2. Frightened Condition - player chooses what PC does outside the restrictions dictated by the condition. DM may grant inspiration based on roleplay.
3. Intimidated by skill roll - DM provides guidance as to how the NPC skill roll makes the PC feel (based on the total score rolled and assuming that situation and high roll do not impose the frightened condition). Player player chooses what PC does. DM may grant inspiration based on this roleplay. DM may ask player to reconsider or justify an action if desired action appears to disregard the skill roll entirely.

The third bit, "Intimidated by skill roll," will never happen in my game. Saying the character is intimidated is saying how he or she thinks and acts. The DM is saying "your character is cowed and afraid because of what [NPC] did..." then asking the player to make choices according to that fear. The DM doesn't get to decide that a character is afraid in my view, short of magical compulsion.

I think there's a disconnect as to the purpose and use of ability checks as well. Ability checks or "skill checks" as some want to call them aren't powers to be activated. Ability checks exist separate from the fictional actions taking place and their purpose is to resolve uncertainty. There is no uncertainty about how a character responds to a NPC's attempt to deceive, intimidate, or persuade because the player is in full control of that. No uncertainty, no ability check.

Otherwise why even bother to give monsters skill training in interaction skills? They are clearly intended to have some kind of effect and I don't believe that it was ever intended that this should be solely limited to NPC on NPC action. How often is that even going to be a thing?

On what are you basing your assertion that "they are clearly intended to have some kind of effect?"

To my mind, monsters skill training in social interaction-type skills can be used for several purposes: (1) Use against other NPCs; (2) Use for opposed checks or to set a DC when rolling to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a player character's action; and (3) Use as a shorthand fictional descriptor e.g. a monster with a good Deception or Intimidation bonus will tend to act deceptively or in an intimidating fashion during an interaction.

Persuasion is far harder to roleplay than intimidate for sure.

I am curious to know though how you would deal with the situation where the player of a cleric chooses to do something that clearly contravenes alignment or religious dogma of the deity? Obviously the player and PC can do what they like and if you are a DM that feels no interference or advice is ever justified, you are equally free to ignore the alignment and deity restrictions but to me the story does have a life of its own so I would feel that the player should be given some advice and feedback to help them understand potential consequences even though I make it very clear that the choice and the consequences are ultimately down to them and will make a fine story in their own right.

A player is free to determine how his or her character thinks, acts, and what he or she says in my game. That does not mean the player's choices are without consequence. After all, the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes. Knowingly violating those wishes without being repentant would seem to have an obvious conclusion.

 

[Pauln6]

The third bit, "Intimidated by skill roll," will never happen in my game. Saying the character is intimidated is saying how he or she thinks and acts. The DM is saying "your character is cowed and afraid because of what [NPC] did..." then asking the player to make choices according to that fear. The DM doesn't get to decide that a character is afraid in my view, short of magical compulsion.

I think there's a disconnect as to the purpose and use of ability checks as well. Ability checks or "skill checks" as some want to call them aren't powers to be activated. Ability checks exist separate from the fictional actions taking place and their purpose is to resolve uncertainty. There is no uncertainty about how a character responds to a NPC's attempt to deceive, intimidate, or persuade because the player is in full control of that. No uncertainty, no ability check.



On what are you basing your assertion that "they are clearly intended to have some kind of effect?"

To my mind, monsters skill training in social interaction-type skills can be used for several purposes: (1) Use against other NPCs; (2) Use for opposed checks or to set a DC when rolling to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a player character's action; and (3) Use as a shorthand fictional descriptor e.g. a monster with a good Deception or Intimidation bonus will tend to act deceptively or in an intimidating fashion during an interaction.



A player is free to determine how his or her character thinks, acts, and what he or she says in my game. That does not mean the player's choices are without consequence. After all, the ability to cast cleric spells relies on devotion and an intuitive sense of a deity’s wishes. Knowingly violating those wishes without being repentant would seem to have an obvious conclusion.

Yes I see, we just have different styles - your style harks back to how we played 1e and 2e. However, intimidate and persuasion are active skills and therefore will have no use in opposed rolls. I believe they are there so that monsters can interact differently with PCs rather than having carbon copy personalities from the same DM, otherwise you end up with monsters only being distinguished in a fight.

I personally would feel it was my job as DM to warn a player with far less than Wis 18 that their actions might lead to consequences before I let them decide on a final course in the same way that I would tell them that the NPC is slightly, very, or extremely intimidating before they decide how their PCs should react.

 

[iserith]

Yes I see, we just have different styles - your style harks back to how we played 1e and 2e. However, intimidate and persuasion are active skills and therefore will have no use in opposed rolls.

An opposed ability check occurs during a contest where the character and the monster (for example) are trying to accomplish the same thing and the outcome is uncertain. The fighter tries to rout the goblins with a fearsome display of her battle prowess while the ogre tries to threaten them into holding the line (Intimidation contest to control the goblins). The character ties to persuade the king to send his armies to aid a neighbor while the succubus whispers lies in his ears about the PCs' true intentions (Persuasion vs. Deception contest to control the king).

In these cases, the monster's ability check is used to determine the DC for the player to overcome to achieve the character's goal.

I believe they are there so that monsters can interact differently with PCs rather than having carbon copy personalities from the same DM, otherwise you end up with monsters only being distinguished in a fight.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. But if the DM isn't making his or her NPCs distinct and memorable, I think that's an issue separate and apart from what we're talking about in this thread.

I personally would feel it was my job as DM to warn a player with far less than Wis 18 that their actions might lead to consequences before I let them decide on a final course in the same way that I would tell them that the NPC is slightly, very, or extremely intimidating before they decide how their PCs should react.

I would also warn of potential consequences, generally in the form of things that happen in the fiction (visions, omens, visitations by proxies of the deity or other clerics, etc.), and no immediate consequence need be enacted. One transgression does not a fall from grace make in my view. I'm not in the DM's chair to "gotcha" players due to uninformed choices.

In any case, the broader point is that consequences may weigh on a player's decision as to how he or she will have his or her character act, but it's still in the hands of the player to decide. The DM isn't determining for the player how the character thinks, acts, or what he or she says.

 

[Pauln6]

In any case, the broader point is that consequences may weigh on a player's decision as to how he or she will have his or her character act, but it's still in the hands of the player to decide. The DM isn't determining for the player how the character thinks, acts, or what he or she says.

I think this is where we are talking about shades of that same red line. Many people view the result of the skill check as the background that 'may weigh on a player's decision as to how he or she will have his or her character act, but it's still in the hands of the player to decide.'

 

[Hriston]

As to why NPCs have these skills if they are not meant to influence and/or compel the decisions of PCs, first I would point to the odd man out, Deception. Unlike the other two social skills, Deception can apply in two slightly different situations. The first, the typical social interaction check, is one in which a character is attempting to influence another creature in order to gain the creature's compliance with some request or demand. If that attempt is based on a falsehood, then skill in Deception would apply. A PC cannot be influenced by such a check because the premise of roleplaying is that the player assumes the role of his or her character. A PC's actions cannot determined by such a check because they depend solely on the decisions of the player. Persuasion and Intimidation are likewise unable to influence the player's decisions with respect to his or her PC. The best way to resolve such a situation is for the DM, as the NPC, to lie to the player, and for the player to decide on the PC's response. No check, and therefore no skill, need be involved.

On the other hand, if the player suspects a falsehood, and seeks to verify the truthfulness of the NPC's statement through observations of the NPC's body language, etc, and the DM asks for a Wisdom (Insight) check from the PC, then this can be contested by the NPC's Charisma (Deception) check. The outcome of this check, however, does not determine whether the PC is compelled to any sort of action if the lie is found to be believable, but only whether falseness is in fact detected.

Looking at the DM's Basic Rules, the four monsters/NPCs skilled in Deception are the Doppelganger, Medusa, Green Dragon, and Cultist. All of them are figures who are likely to lie to the PCs. Their skill in Deception will not come up however unless they attempt to deceive other NPCs, or if a PC attempts to uncover their falsehood.

Intimidation and Persuasion are both very similar to one another in that they both represent an attempt to influence through force of personality without resorting to falsehood. Intimidation is backed up with threats, and Persuasion is supported by good manners, or compelling arguments. There is no action that parallels the discovery of falsehood in the case of an interaction that relies on these skills, so if an NPC is attempting to persuade or intimidate a PC, no check is required. The outcome depends solely on the player's decision.

Orcs and Thugs make a Charisma (Intimidation) check to keep their own allies, or lesser creatures, in line, given that social skills are more effective when used on friendly creatures. Likewise, a Priest will use his skill in Persuasion, not to boost a Charisma check the outcome of which will determine the PCs actions, but rather to influence the actions of of another NPC. If the PCs take action to elicit the opposite outcome, as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has pointed out, these become contested checks.