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

[iserith]

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'd be bothered if you're reading them solely to "catch" me in some kind of supposed inconsistency with regard to my position on players asking questions. That is my position and approach. I request players respect it when they play in my games and the games in my view are better for it. I'm not a jerk about it and as I believe I've already stated, if a player doesn't hear or remember something or doesn't understand what I said, it's okay to ask me to repeat myself. There is a difference between that kind of question and one that can otherwise be handled by taking action in the game world.

You're still on the first of twenty transcripts though (I think). You will at some point see me asking a player to rephrase.

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.

It is not a "no questions allowed" game. It is a game where questions are discouraged as I have explained upthread which comes with some exceptions. If you can take action in the game to answer your question, do that. If you didn't hear me, didn't remember what I said, or were confused about how I said it, then ask away.

 

[MostlyDm]

I'd be bothered if you're reading them solely to "catch" me in some kind of supposed inconsistency with regard to my position on players asking questions. That is my position and approach. I request players respect it when they play in my games and the games in my view are better for it. I'm not a jerk about it and as I believe I've already stated, if a player doesn't hear or remember something or doesn't understand what I said, it's okay to ask me to repeat myself. There is a difference between that kind of question and one that can otherwise be handled by taking action in the game world.

You're still on the first of twenty transcripts though (I think). You will at some point see me asking a player to rephrase.



It is not a "no questions allowed" game. It is a game where questions are discouraged as I have explained upthread which comes with some exceptions. If you can take action in the game to answer your question, do that. If you didn't hear me, didn't remember what I said, or were confused about how I said it, then ask away.

It's not really about trying to "catch" you though. It was to see the style in action with regards to that one narrow issue.

It's clear to me now that I misunderstood you, though. No biggie, misunderstandings are common (another reason I like clarifying questions!)

You say it plainly here: if someone is confused by the scene, they can ask for clarifications. That's basically all I'm advocating.

 

[MostlyDm]

Ovinomancer: Iserith will correct me if I misrepresent him, but... I think I can help clarify this for you a little. Just based on the style of narration in his transcripts, I think I can offer some insight

Think of Iserith's games as a novel he is writing. He writes everything except for four-to-six characters, who have their own authors for their actions and dialogue. If he magically controls one of them, he writes them for the duration of the spell. Otherwise, their author writes that character.

 

[iserith]

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



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.


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



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:



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.


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.

Again, the answer to all of this is that magic is the exception that proves the rule. There is no inconsistency here. A player determines how the character acts, what he or she does and says except when magically compelled to think or act another way. An ability check isn't a magic spell or a power to be activated. It isn't even a fictional action. It's just a mechanic to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a fictional action when the DM determines that outcome is uncertain. However, the DM can't make that assertion where characters are concerned in my view because they control how the characters think and act. So whatever response they give in the face of an NPC trying to deceive, intimidate, or persuade them is the result.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd be bothered if you're reading them solely to "catch" me in some kind of supposed inconsistency with regard to my position on players asking questions. That is my position and approach. I request players respect it when they play in my games and the games in my view are better for it. I'm not a jerk about it and as I believe I've already stated, if a player doesn't hear or remember something or doesn't understand what I said, it's okay to ask me to repeat myself. There is a difference between that kind of question and one that can otherwise be handled by taking action in the game world.

You're still on the first of twenty transcripts though (I think). You will at some point see me asking a player to rephrase.



It is not a "no questions allowed" game. It is a game where questions are discouraged as I have explained upthread which comes with some exceptions. If you can take action in the game to answer your question, do that. If you didn't hear me, didn't remember what I said, or were confused about how I said it, then ask away.

I was going to respond to other things you said but I got a good laugh here... you said something and people took it to mean something, but then you went back and explained... now your caught in this 'well I allow this but not that' and think people think you mean X when you mean Y...

why do I find this funny? because at least 2 posters in this thread asked you to stop saying they make PCs think or act I a way, yet even still you insist that using intimidate to intimidate then letting the player think and act how they think there character would think and act as they see fit is taking away there ability to do so...

the same defense you just used is the same one the jedi guy used... so yea, um maybe just the fact that you can say "Hey look my players like it" (same argument others used) and "I think it makes my game better" (same argument) and "Don't think I did X just because I said Y" means maybe you should rethink your whole stance...


I again point out, I am yet to see anyone say "I can tell my players how there characters think or act"


I see no difference in a spell, a skill, a combat maneuver, they are all just game terms for how I get to use the system (both as DM and PC).

 

[iserith]

You say it plainly here: if someone is confused by the scene, they can ask for clarifications. That's basically all I'm advocating.

But you know the kinds of questions I'm talking about not wanting in the game, right? It's stuff that can be handled via character action.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Again, the answer to all of this is that magic is the exception that proves the rule. There is no inconsistency here. A player determines how the character acts, what he or she does and says except when magically compelled to think or act another way. An ability check isn't a magic spell or a power to be activated. It isn't even a fictional action. It's just a mechanic to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a fictional action when the DM determines that outcome is uncertain. However, the DM can't make that assertion where characters are concerned in my view because they control how the characters think and act. So whatever response they give in the face of an NPC trying to deceive, intimidate, or persuade them is the result.

there is uncertainty... "How well does the NPC (Lie/cojole/intimidate) the PC"

it isn't up to the PC to decide how well the NPC did any more then it is up to the PC to decide what kind of Save he makes... "I tough out the fireball instead of jump away so that's a con save" or worse "I don't take fireball damage I'm too tough"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But you know the kinds of questions I'm talking about not wanting in the game, right? It's stuff that can be handled via character action.

what about things that don't require an action... If I walk into a bar and get a bad feeling I turn around and walk out. I don't need to stop and say "What is my feeling" or take an action to check my feelings. You are physicaly incapabul (so is everyone else not just you) of packing enough detail into a description to mimic real life...

 

[MostlyDm]

But you know the kinds of questions I'm talking about not wanting in the game, right? It's stuff that can be handled via character action.

Oh absolutely! I think I said right off the bat that I've seen players engage in the kind of 20 questions you're talking about. I definitely prefer to discourage that as well. I often play with kids who are new to RPGs. A simple "you can ask him" or "you can try opening it and find out" or whatever often suffices.

I can't remember if I said this before or not: FWIW I actually agree with several of your statements in this thread that are peripheral to the one I took issue with.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Again, the answer to all of this is that magic is the exception that proves the rule. There is no inconsistency here. A player determines how the character acts, what he or she does and says except when magically compelled to think or act another way. An ability check isn't a magic spell or a power to be activated. It isn't even a fictional action. It's just a mechanic to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a fictional action when the DM determines that outcome is uncertain. However, the DM can't make that assertion where characters are concerned in my view because they control how the characters think and act. So whatever response they give in the face of an NPC trying to deceive, intimidate, or persuade them is the result.

How do you feel about the Barbarian's Intimidating Presence, then? It's not magic, so I guess it has no effect on PCs?

See, the statement that magic is the exception to the general rule provides absolutely no reason why social skills are not also an exception. You've declared via fiat, not reasoning. Why are social skills not also an exception?