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

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I don't recommend hiding mechanics myself. When they come into play, they are always in the open at my table.

Also, did it occur to you to try and break the spell somehow, perhaps by exerting your will? Or try to determine if you were indeed under a spell by way of a fictional action?

but you do hide mechanics... the NPC has an intimidate check but you don't want to tell the PC that you want to describe him trying to intimidate and hope they under stand..

and the deadlands game doesn't have actions to break spells, so no it never accrued to me to do something the system is not meant to do since I can't question him out of game...

 

[iserith]

no he is describing the world around you and HOW INTIMADATING the enemy is... it is the same thing you do. I just use short hand that is directly teling the PC what is happening, you just describe and hope they get the gist...

You're welcome to describe what the enemy does. But you cross a line when you say my character is "intimidated." (Or persuaded or deceived...)

what if I want more info that my character would have without taking an action?

What info you "would" have would already be in the description of the environment. If you need additional information, do stuff: Try to recall lore, for example, or explore.

he did the same thing you did just because you are better at it doesn't mean it isn't the same

First, he did something I've been saying not to do for hundreds of posts now: He told a player how the character acts - in this case, he said the character was entranced. He also purposefully mislead the player which is something I've also advised against in this thread.

That's not from my playbook at all. Just because we share a policy of encouraging players to have their characters do stuff rather than ask questions of the DM doesn't make us the same. Based on what was established about this creepy DM, it's not even clear we both employ this technique for the same reasons.

 

[iserith]

but you do hide mechanics... the NPC has an intimidate check but you don't want to tell the PC that you want to describe him trying to intimidate and hope they under stand..

The NPC doesn't have an "Intimidate check" simply because it is trying to intimidate a character. A Charisma (Intimidation) check is called for only when the outcome of the attempted action is uncertain. In the case of an NPC trying to intimidate a PC, the outcome of the attempted action is not uncertain because the player whatever the player does in response is the outcome. Thus there is no need for an "Intimidate check." So I can't be hiding one.

and the deadlands game doesn't have actions to break spells, so no it never accrued to me to do something the system is not meant to do since I can't question him out of game...

Mechanics in an RPG cannot prevent you from trying things. It's not a board game. The DM/GM may say that you succeed or fail based on a mechanical consideration, but that is a different story. In your position, I would have tried to break that spell by resisting and let the GM tell me what happens. At the very least, I would have tried to determine if I was indeed under a spell rather than make what was later proven to be a bad assumption.

Edit: To be clear, I don't condone how the GM handled that situation. But to say that what happened was due to a policy of "no questions" dismisses other options you had available to you to affect the outcome.

 

[Ristamar]

he did the same thing you did just because you are better at it doesn't mean it isn't the same

That's a pretty disingenuous statement. I know for a fact that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] has stated on several occasions (and in this thread, IIRC) that he always wants the players to make informed decisions and will prevent harmful character actions that are performed out of sheer ignorance.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

The NPC doesn't have an "Intimidate check" simply because it is trying to intimidate a character. A Charisma (Intimidation) check is called for only when the outcome of the attempted action is uncertain.

there is uncertainty no one knows how well in game the NPC does until he tries... you can describe and say all you want all that does is show how good or bad a orator you are (based on what you say you are quite skilled) how ever that is just you telling a story. Your NPC can be good or bad get lucky or unlucky, but your way doesn't take that into account at all. You say no check needed, I say "Yes there is, your CHARACTER (Pc or Npc) is trying an action, roll to see how well they do"

In the case of an NPC trying to intimidate a PC, the outcome of the attempted action is not uncertain because the player whatever the player does in response is the outcome.

except it is your out of game skill to tell the story and the players out of game skill of interpreting what you say or mean, and at no point is it refrencing the game world. You have ripped 1 whole pillar out of the game and just said "My way is better"

Thus there is no need for an "Intimidate check." So I can't be hiding one.

skill checks show how well or bad someone performs an action... the fact that I can describe my awesome jump, and/or do an awesome jump in the real world won't help my str 7 untrained in athletics and at disadvantage due to weight/encumbrance character jumping a 7ft pit. You can describe the intimidation all you want, but like jumping if you don't roll it in no way is tied to the character in the game it is mearly you out of game saying something...

it would be like me grabing a nerf sword and throwing you one and saying "Ok now lets see if you hit my hobgoblin?" see my hobgoblin has an AC, you have an attack mod... or in this case your monster has a skill use it instead of your skill in telling stories...

Mechanics in an RPG cannot prevent you from trying things.

sure they can... the mechanics say my 2nd level fighter can't cast fireball... nothing I do, no matter how well I roleplay the exact semetic componenets will let me...

It's not a board game.

well it's a subtype of game, just not board....

The DM/GM may say that you succeed or fail based on a mechanical consideration, but that is a different story.

no it's you word lawyering...

In your position, I would have tried to break that spell by resisting and let the GM tell me what happens.

bull... in a game where you know that once an effect happens there is no way to undo it you would attempt to undo it knowing that it wont work in the hopes of working around the 'don't ask questions' rule... why not just skip the stupid middle parts and just explain what happened and let the PC ask questions...

At the very least, I would have tried to determine if I was indeed under a spell rather than make what was later proven to be a bad assumption.

there is no way to determain if you are charmed in game... you can (if you have a resnable DM that lets you just directly ask quastions) ask if you are under a charm effect out of game..

Edit: To be clear, I don't condone how the GM handled that situation. But to say that what happened was due to a policy of "no questions" dismisses other options you had available to you to affect the outcome.

bull again you want to dance around and pretend there are all these options instead of just letting the PC ask you to clearfiy...same way he did.

 

[MostlyDm]

I give players with whom I've never played a pass and I never played with those players prior to that game (except a one-shot with bawylie). But you'll see later on in the transcripts (if you get that far) that more than once I ask someone to rephrase. At the end of the day, the odd question here and there is fine. It's really the 20 Questions that goes on at many tables these days (actual play videos are rife with it) that I object to.

Thanks for taking the time to read the transcripts.

I definitely need to read that far, then. To see the circumstances. Because as I said, one of the noteworthy examples so far is when someone wants to know if the fire looks likely to spread to other buildings. The player narrates "Charname checks to see if the fire will spread to other buildings" or something along those lines. This is functionally *not at all* different from simply saying "does it look like the fire could easily spread to nearby buildings?" Except one violates a "no questions" rule and the other does not.

I agree sometimes you need to curtail 20 questions, but only if the questions are unreasonable. It's less specifically about number of questions and more type of question, to my mind

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

That's a pretty disingenuous statement. I know for a fact that iserith has stated on several occasions (and in this thread, IIRC) that he always wants the players to make informed decisions and will prevent harmful character actions that are performed out of sheer ignorance.

and yet he defends the GM that was doing it... and tells me what I should have done... witch for the record was quite the game long before this...

while he calls out '20 quastions' he also has his PCs try and fail at actions instead of just informing them...

'recall lore' is great sometimes... but just letting the PC out of game ask "Is there anything commonly know" is fine too

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

I agree sometimes you need to curtail 20 questions, but only if the questions are unreasonable. It's less specifically about number of questions and more type of question, to my mind

the most reasonable answer I have heard in this thread yet... anything taken too far is bad, and I HATE the whole 'don't question me' stance...but yea you can curtail it if going to far...

 

[Ristamar]

I definitely need to read that far, then. To see the circumstances. Because as I said, one of the noteworthy examples so far is when someone wants to know if the fire looks likely to spread to other buildings. The player narrates "Charname checks to see if the fire will spread to other buildings" or something along those lines. This is functionally *not at all* different from simply saying "does it look like the fire could easily spread to nearby buildings?" Except one violates a "no questions" rule and the other does not.

I agree sometimes you need to curtail 20 questions, but only if the questions are unreasonable. It's less specifically about number of questions and more type of question, to my mind

Functionally not different, though one could argue it helps maintain a character focused mindset and atmosphere. I'd also wager it speeds up play since it eliminates a lot of opportunities for off-topic quips and exchanges.

For what it's worth, I don't think the "20 questions" style is wrong (it still occurs quite often at my table), but I can easily see why a good DM might discourage that form of interaction since it has the potential to take the focus off the scene and break immersion.

 

[Ristamar]

and yet he defends the GM that was doing it... and tells me what I should have done...

At the risk of putting words in the mouth of [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I think he was suggesting general options your character could to use to inform herself and take subsequent action when circumstances are vague. He wasn't advocating your DM's crude and blatant ruse.