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

[GMforPowergamers]

Player 1: Hey, doesn't he know who runs the thieves around here?
DM: Why are you asking me? I'm not [dwarf fighter].
Player 1: "Hey [dwarf fighter], don't you know who runs the thieves around here?"
Player 2: "Yep. It's [NPC]."

or

Player 2: "Hmm, it's been a while since I've been home..." I try to recall who runs the local thieves' guild. I might know because I grew up here. (<-- action)
DM: It's Chuck Dagger, a thoroughly disreputable scoundrel who is said to run his crime organization, The Chiselers, from Old Town.

or

Player 2: "Hmm, it's been a while since I've been home..." I try to recall who runs the local thieves' guild. I might know because I grew up here. (<-- action)
DM: I think according to your background, you left town at an early age. So let's see a DC 10 Intelligence check. If you succeed, I'll tell you who it is and where you can find this person. If you fail, I'll tell you only who it is and it's on you to find his or her location, if you want.
Player 2: Okay. *rolls* 12. (<-- ability check)
DM: It's Chuck Dagger, a thoroughly disreputable scoundrel who is said to run his crime organization, The Chiselers, from Old Town.

This is how I would handle it.

there is no real difference, so what makes you think your way is so much better? I know I like more direct communication with my friends...

the only thing I dis like is

DM: Why are you asking me? I'm not [dwarf fighter].

sounds WAY too antagonistic for me to say at my table...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I disagree that the player is in control in these situations where the DM is declaring the character deceived, intimidated, or persuaded. That is not going to change for me. Where do we go from here?

well you either are stuck believing us "we don't take control from PCs" or you are stuck calling us liars (against the rules around here) or you have to find some way to deal with it...

because point blank We do not take control of the PCs actions, thoughts, or anything else, but YES we will tell PCs "Hey, the orc got a 27 intimidate check," so your move... do you understand that we can Do A without doing B, or do you think we are liars? because at this point what you have to do is realize the important part we have issue with is you saying we take control when we do not...

 

[iserith]

there is no real difference, so what makes you think your way is so much better? I know I like more direct communication with my friends...

My way, at least in this example, creates an opportunity for dialogue between the characters (albeit limited because of context and medium) instead of Q&A between DM and player. I believe the former makes for a more engaging story. It is not better universally. It is simply better for me and mine.

the only thing I dis like is

DM: Why are you asking me? I'm not [dwarf fighter].

sounds WAY too antagonistic for me to say at my table...

It's funny when I say it. The humor is lost in the text.

 

[iserith]

well you either are stuck believing us "we don't take control from PCs" or you are stuck calling us liars (against the rules around here) or you have to find some way to deal with it...

because point blank We do not take control of the PCs actions, thoughts, or anything else, but YES we will tell PCs "Hey, the orc got a 27 intimidate check," so your move... do you understand that we can Do A without doing B, or do you think we are liars? because at this point what you have to do is realize the important part we have issue with is you saying we take control when we do not...

I've explained pretty clearly where the line is for me. If you don't step over that line, then I would have no issue in your game. You can tell me that the orc got a "27 Intimidate check" and I'll just ignore it because that information is not useful in my view. But tell me that my character is intimidated and I'm going to object.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My way, at least in this example, creates an opportunity for dialogue between the characters (albeit limited because of context and medium) instead of Q&A between DM and player. I believe the former makes for a more engaging story. It is not better universally. It is simply better for me and mine.

while to each there own in that regard, I don't want to have to 'engage' so far that I can't stop to ask an immersion quastion

It's funny when I say it. The humor is lost in the text.

yea big problem with written instead of spoken word... I read it as aggressively trying to tell the player not to ask a simple question, not a joke...I withdraw that if it was a joke...

I've explained pretty clearly where the line is for me. If you don't step over that line, then I would have no issue in your game. You can tell me that the orc got a "27 Intimidate check" and I'll just ignore it because that information is not useful in my view. But tell me that my character is intimidated and I'm going to object.

Except your line is "Are you controlling what my character thinks or says or does" the answer is no I don't do that...full stop.
now because we both communicate with our friends in vastly different ways I can say "The orc lies to you" "The orc uses X skill on you" or "The orc intimidates you" without taking any control from the PC... HOWEVER I will say I'm fine if you can not communicate that way without also forcing something on the PCs, it's just how we communicate... what I can't except is you don't understand that I can communicate something you claim you can not?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think I figured something out...

because in my game at any point any PC can stop the game to have a dialog, I have more freedom in what I do or don't do in my games without infringeing on my PCs... if the only recourse they had was "DOn't ask just declair and in game action" maybe then I too would have to limit things...

 

[Valmarius]

there is no real difference, so what makes you think your way is so much better? I know I like more direct communication with my friends...

sounds WAY too antagonistic for me to say at my table...

I see the difference as this:

In my last session, the PCs are in a crypt, and one of them asks if they can go down a set of stairs.
Whether I say yes or no, nothing has occurred in game. Time is standing still while the players ask things and decide what to do.

What I gather is that Iserith's preference, and mine also, is that the story continues forward by requiring actions over questions. So the conversation went something like this:

PC: Can I go down the stairs?
DM: you can certainly try.
PC: I make my way over to the stairs and slowly descend.
DM: [description of next room]

 

[iserith]

Except your line is "Are you controlling what my character thinks or says or does" the answer is no I don't do that...full stop.

Please read my posts of late where I have become even more clear to show where the line is exactly. I don't want to keep repeating myself. I've done that a ton already in this thread.

"The orc lies to you"

That's fine - and saves me from having to try and discern its truthfulness.

"The orc uses X skill on you"

I'd likely just ignore that unless you tell me what that actually means in the fiction.

"The orc intimidates you"

No good. I decide if my character is intimidated. You're welcome to describe what the orc does to try and intimidate me though.

 

[Valmarius]

An NPC being intimidating and a PC being Intimidated are very different things. If Krusk the barbarian's natural reaction to being threatened is to lash out, or make his own threats then I don't think it would be fair for a DM to say, you are intimidated.

I would describe the NPC as making his threats and then ask how the PC responds. More power to the Player to have their character act the way they want. (Magical fear notwithstanding)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I see the difference as this:

In my last session, the PCs are in a crypt, and one of them asks if they can go down a set of stairs.
Whether I say yes or no, nothing has occurred in game. Time is standing still while the players ask things and decide what to do.

What I gather is that Iserith's preference, and mine also, is that the story continues forward by requiring actions over questions. So the conversation went something like this:

PC: Can I go down the stairs?
DM: you can certainly try.
PC: I make my way over to the stairs and slowly descend.
DM: [description of next room]

pauseing the flow of the game to answer a question seems much easier then pauseing the flow of the game to tell someone not to ask a question...