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

[iserith]

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...

Your Deadlands GM may have had a "don't question me" stance, but that is an unfair assessment of my approach which is better described as "Do stuff rather than ask the DM questions."

 

[Staccat0]

To a certain degree that's RP and just player knowledge vs character knowledge, but I would just give the player an inspiration point if they play along and give them disadvantage on any rolls they make to the contrary.

 

[iserith]

What bothers me about your approach is that you completely ignore the fact that the player is not the character in determining the outcome of social interactions towards them only. I'm fairly certain that you allow stealth checks against the players' WIS (perception), but I fail to see the difference between that and refusing to allow intimidate checks against their CHA. Telling a player that the orc has successfully intimidated their character isn't telling the player what to think, it's telling the player what constraints his character is under, much like not telling the player about the thief sneaking up on him that his character hasn't noticed yet. The player still has his entire agency to declare his actions knowing his character is intimidated by the orc. It's just more information about the world and the character the player is playing, it's not telling the player how to play, it's not telling the player what the player is thinking, its saying that this orc, in this situation, scares their character. What do you do about it?

I do not think the DM is entitled to say how a character thinks and acts - in your example, "scared" of the orc. I think the player should decide that because I consider this an example of the DM infringing upon the player's right to determine how the character thinks, acts, and what he or she says.

Whether or not the PCs notice the sneaking monsters is a different story because it does not infringe upon the player's right to determine how the character thinks, acts, or what he or she says. The point at which I'm making that check, the players have already declared how the characters are acting. In this case, keeping an eye out for hidden danger (otherwise, there will be no passive check). I'm making the Stealth check to determine how well they do at that effort.

The way I see it is that you've critically undermined your position as inconsistent by admitting that you would tell a player what their character thinks when under supernatural or magical influence. I'm pretty sure that when a character fails a will save against a fear spell that you tell the player that they now have the frightened condition, just as I'm sure that when a character fails a wisdom save against a charm effect that you tell the player that their character now considers Bob the Vampire Lord their bestest of best friends.

I would do what the spell says happens, yes. I don't see how following the rules on this point undermines my position.

So, you've established that, given proper circumstances, you've no issue informing a player what their character is thinking. However, you seem to be adamant that one should never, ever tell a player what their character is thinking when targeted by a social skill check, but you haven't yet established what makes those mechanics different from the spell mechanics.

So, point blank, why are social skills (mechanics which target numbers on the character sheet) inherently different from magical mind magic (other mechanics which target numbers on the character sheet)?

I'm adamant that nobody should do that to me and that I would not knowingly do that to anyone else. If you and yours go in for that sort of thing, you should definitely keep doing it. I'm not telling you how you or anyone else should play.

As for why social skills are different than magical compulsion, that should be self-evident - it's magic and it's the exception that proves the rule. But also because of this part of the Basic Rules I've already referenced upthread from the Roleplaying section of the Social Interaction entry (page 66):

"Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks."

This, taken in context with the basic conversation of the game (page 3) and the rules for ability checks (page 58), tells me that when an NPC tries to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a player character, the player determines the result, no roll. And so that's how I run my game and prefer other DMs handle it when I'm a player in their games.

 

[iserith]

This seems like a great example of the difference between PCs and NPCs.

Player says "my character intimidates the guard into letting us pass", rolls Intimidate skill. GM says "no, the guard is unmoved". Player complains "That's not fair, what's the point of taking skills anyway if they never work, this sucks!!'.

If you put it the other way around? The player still complains.

GM says "the guard intimidates your character into letting them pass", rolls Intimidate skill. Player complains "That's not fair, you are taking away my agency!".

This is why I made the comment about social skills being for PCs only, which appears to be the way several posters here play. This annoys me - a rule should apply all the time, not some of the time.

Your examples only work from a particular perspective though. Do you see where the player just rolls that Intimidate skill? That cannot happen in my game. A player only describes what he or she wants the character to do. The DM decides whether or not there is an ability check. The smart play in my game is not to make a check because that robs randomness of its power over your fate.

This is why I asked upthread whether people are playing the way you suggest. Because I sense a correlation between this way of playing and disagreement with my position. Thus I think there may be a breakdown of communication along this line.

So, is there a way of using these skills that works in both directions?

Someone else upthread suggested a bribe/payoff setup. So for example, if Beat Horsedeath successfully intimidates "mechanically," then you can earn Inspiration if you play along with that. Or you can spend Inspiration to ignore it. This would still leave it an open question as to what the DC would be to test Beat Horsedeath's attempt. Beat Horsedeath's goal would also have to be clear (e.g. "get PCs not to fight" or "get PCs to give up gold") so that the players could act in accordance with that to earn their Inspiration. But I think some of you objected to the transparency that would be required to make that work.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Do you see where the player just rolls that Intimidate skill? That cannot happen in my game. A player only describes what he or she wants the character to do. The DM decides whether or not there is an ability check.

True. I'm having that problem as well. Players are saying "I roll intimidate" rather than "I act mean and threaten the guard". Or, even worse, players are rolling first and just telling me "I intimidated the guard".

I have to be honest, I'm still sometimes in that mindset as well. I even custom-printed my own GM screen (Hammerdog's one) with a small section on the AngryGM steps "Players declare intent and approach, GM decides success or fail or roll".

The bribe/payoff sounds like it is worth investigating.

My main requirement is that I want those skills to be useful to NPCs.

Maybe it is just something as simple as "The guard threatens you, but you can see it is just hot air and bluster" (for a low roll) and "The guard threatens you, by their body language you can see they mean business and are quite prepared to back up their words with violence" (for a high roll).

 

[Ristamar]

This seems like a great example of the difference between PCs and NPCs.

Player says "my character intimidates the guard into letting us pass", rolls Intimidate skill. GM says "no, the guard is unmoved". Player complains "That's not fair, what's the point of taking skills anyway if they never work, this sucks!!'.

If you put it the other way around? The player still complains.

GM says "the guard intimidates your character into letting them pass", rolls Intimidate skill. Player complains "That's not fair, you are taking away my agency!".

This is why I made the comment about social skills being for PCs only, which appears to be the way several posters here play. This annoys me - a rule should apply all the time, not some of the time.

So, is there a way of using these skills that works in both directions?

There are plenty of things in D&D that don't always apply both ways. Monsters don't typically get death saves. When they go down, they're usually dead.

Also, I think there's a coupling of interaction and expected (forced?) results in your examples may be objectionable assuming the DM hasn't established the stakes before an attempt is made. The possible results do not have to be binary. For example, there are guards that may be visibly shaken by a PC's successful intimidation attempt yet still refuse them entry. If the PC continues to press, they may nervously call for backup and/or preemptively attack out of fear. The PC undoubtedly intimidated the guards, but he didn't necessarily get the result he was expecting.

Unlike most spells, only a DM's subjective (but hopefully fair) judgement dictates who or to what degree someone is susceptible to a social ability check, and unlike most spells, the effects are not rigidly outlined within the rules. As a DM, I'll often hint at probable outcomes based on what the character knows or intuits, but I'm not averse to throwing a few curve balls, especially if the situation is volatile, the players are reckless or overly aggressive, or there are factors in play unknown to the character(s).

 

[iserith]

Maybe it is just something as simple as "The guard threatens you, but you can see it is just hot air and bluster" (for a low roll) and "The guard threatens you, by their body language you can see they mean business and are quite prepared to back up their words with violence" (for a high roll).

Lots of DMs just use the dice to inform how they describe the environment. I have no issue with that at all, even though I don't choose to do that. I just don't want any infringement upon my ability to determine how my character thinks, acts, and talks such as a DM telling me my PC is deceived, intimidated, or persuaded (roll or no roll).

 

[MostlyDm]

What Ristamar said.

The difference between the two examples you cited has a lot to do with form, but it's form for a purpose. It keeps things flowing forward as a story would. It encourages the players to be thinking about things from their characters' perspectives. It also makes it easy for the DM to identify actions that need to be adjudicated or not.

If you want to scour the transcripts with a goal of finding where a question was asked and answered, you will find some - not many, but some. If your goal is to see what effect that approach has on the game exactly, you will no doubt see it in the quality of the interactions and storytelling that arises.

Yeah, that is my stated goal. I read a little further, found more. They aren't common, but they occur. Are you bothered by the fact that I'm looking? That was the whole point of linking me the transcripts, right? So that I could see your "no questions, only actions" policy in effect?

But it's not. There are questions. So far, at least, you aren't cautioning against the questions. Which, to be crystal clear, I *approve of,* since the questions have been reasonable so far.

Most recent example was "she went inside?" (Referring to a woman who grabbed a torch.) Great question; the narration was vague in this area. The question clarified things, and the action continued. Everybody won.

If you see these questions as a bad thing, I'm at a loss as to why.

I'm not sure what your last point means. If I want to see the effects of a "no questions, only actions" policy on the game then I should look at the overall quality of the game in the transcript?

First off, why? Since it's not actually a "no questions allowed game," it won't tell me what you think it will. But moreover, unless you're specifically interested in criticism/feedback on the game you ran, I'm not really interested in approaching it from that angle. I'm sure you and your players had a blast. That's what matters, not my opinion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I do not think the DM is entitled to say how a character thinks and acts - in your example, "scared" of the orc. I think the player should decide that because I consider this an example of the DM infringing upon the player's right to determine how the character thinks, acts, and what he or she says.

But you do think the DM is entitled, just not with social skill checks. More on this later.

Whether or not the PCs notice the sneaking monsters is a different story because it does not infringe upon the player's right to determine how the character thinks, acts, or what he or she says. The point at which I'm making that check, the players have already declared how the characters are acting. In this case, keeping an eye out for hidden danger (otherwise, there will be no passive check). I'm making the Stealth check to determine how well they do at that effort.

So you're perfectly okay with using monster or NPC skills against the players, so long as you don't cross the line into telling them how the character thinks. You can tell them what they see, hear, smell, feel (tactily), and taste, all based on skill interactions and common sense, but never, ever what they think based on similar skill interactions. If it's magic, it's okay, though.

I would do what the spell says happens, yes. I don't see how following the rules on this point undermines my position.

Aha. This is the sentence that totally belies your position that:

I'm adamant that nobody should do that to me and that I would not knowingly do that to anyone else. If you and yours go in for that sort of thing, you should definitely keep doing it. I'm not telling you how you or anyone else should play.

You're okay with telling the players what their characters think, so long as it's a magical mechanic that does the acting, not some pesky skill check. Again, why is it different? I get that you say:

As for why social skills are different than magical compulsion, that should be self-evident - it's magic and it's the exception that proves the rule. But also because of this part of the Basic Rules I've already referenced upthread from the Roleplaying section of the Social Interaction entry (page 66):

But it's not self evident from outside the fiction. Instead, you are preferencing one mechanic over another based solely on your assumptions. That's what inconsistent: you haven't yet identified what is specifically different from a magical effect rather than the best con man in the world playing on a character's emotions. But for Bob the Vampire Lord, players have no choice but to like him after they failed their save. For Bob the Silver-Tongued, though, there's no such luck after he charms them with his diplomacy.

"Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks."

This, taken in context with the basic conversation of the game (page 3) and the rules for ability checks (page 58), tells me that when an NPC tries to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a player character, the player determines the result, no roll. And so that's how I run my game and prefer other DMs handle it when I'm a player in their games.

Yes, that's the general rule: generally players determine how their character thinks, acts, and talks. However, we've already established that you've no compunction against taking that agency away in certain circumstances, I'm just asking why you're adamant in all others. It's inconsistent.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Your examples only work from a particular perspective though. Do you see where the player just rolls that Intimidate skill? That cannot happen in my game. A player only describes what he or she wants the character to do. The DM decides whether or not there is an ability check. The smart play in my game is not to make a check because that robs randomness of its power over your fate.

This is why I asked upthread whether people are playing the way you suggest. Because I sense a correlation between this way of playing and disagreement with my position. Thus I think there may be a breakdown of communication along this line.



Someone else upthread suggested a bribe/payoff setup. So for example, if Beat Horsedeath successfully intimidates "mechanically," then you can earn Inspiration if you play along with that. Or you can spend Inspiration to ignore it. This would still leave it an open question as to what the DC would be to test Beat Horsedeath's attempt. Beat Horsedeath's goal would also have to be clear (e.g. "get PCs not to fight" or "get PCs to give up gold") so that the players could act in accordance with that to earn their Inspiration. But I think some of you objected to the transparency that would be required to make that work.

This makes me curious. How do you handle deception vs insight? If an NPC is lying to the characters, do you check anything? Does the NPC role his deception, and if higher than anyone's passive insight, do you just not add anything to the description? If he rolls lower, do you add description that might indicate he's lying or do you tell them they think he's lying? You've said you never roll until there's uncertainty, but this seems a social interact case where there's uncertainty that can't be resolved by letting the players make up their own minds. So, what do you do?

And, if you do do something, why should intimidate or diplomacy be much different?