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

[GMforPowergamers]

You failed a check to see through an opponent's true intentions and went along with it. Cool. But that's not what is being discussed.

I'm asking about how rolling for intimidate/deception/persuasion versus PCs has significant bearing on a scene and why you think this is the easiest and most detailed way to bring flavour into a scene.

you asked for an example and I gave one... the DM rolled a cha (no skill) check and then I roleplayed my reaction... that it.

 

[iserith]

For Iserith and those arguing with him, let it go

A truly funny imperative sentence considering the content in the rest of your rather lengthy post.

What about those arguing for the position(s) I also hold? What should they do?

@Shirebrok: You should now be known as Shirebork which is, in my opinion, too awesome a name to pass up.

 

[Shirebrok]

you asked for an example and I gave one... the DM rolled a cha (no skill) check and then I roleplayed my reaction... that it.

Uh... But you said:

OK, back in the playtest (before the rules where solidified) I had a paladin I had played for 2 or 3 games (each under a different DM we were round robining at the time) when we attacked a necromancer (there was some feat in that version of the rules that was cool for necromancers) and this undead thing (I don't know if it was a ghoul or white or what) and I walked in and this thing was standing there..,. it droped it's sword and said "Thank Baccob...your here to help..." and I looked at the DM funny. He told me to make a wisdom check, and I rolled a 1, so he told me I belived he was honest... so I say "What happened to you..."

I don't remember the whole story but when it back stabed me (in the literal sense not game mechanic) the check helped me see that he was more convincing then I was perceptive.

It's kinda hard to say this without sounding like a jerk, and I really don't want to come off as one and I really just want to understand, but what's with the contradiction here?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Uh... But you said:



It's kinda hard to say this without sounding like a jerk, and I really don't want to come off as one and I really just want to understand, but what's with the contradiction here?

not much of a contradiction... just what happens when you read like a lawyer and not like a normal person talking...

WIsdome (insight) vs Charisma (Could be persuasion or deception but I think deception) is one of the many sub sets of skills we are talking about, and one that I thought I had the easiest to right and quickest to relay here...

Now if I was trying to be super detailed on the situation, I did fail... but you already could have guessed that...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

For Iserith and those arguing with him, let it go; you're not going to convince anyone or change anyone's mind at this point, and there are really no further new points to be made on that particular front. Everyone knows where the lines are drawn, and as long each one works for the respective games, that's all that really matters. Both interpretations are as right and/or as wrong as the individual group is willing to accept, no more and no less.

you know what... your right. Everyone stoped listening or being able to even think outside there own game 20ish pages ago.

 

[iserith]

OK, back in the playtest (before the rules where solidified) I had a paladin I had played for 2 or 3 games (each under a different DM we were round robining at the time) when we attacked a necromancer (there was some feat in that version of the rules that was cool for necromancers) and this undead thing (I don't know if it was a ghoul or white or what) and I walked in and this thing was standing there..,. it droped it's sword and said "Thank Baccob...your here to help..." and I looked at the DM funny. He told me to make a wisdom check, and I rolled a 1, so he told me I belived he was honest... so I say "What happened to you..."

I don't remember the whole story but when it back stabed me (in the literal sense not game mechanic) the check helped me see that he was more convincing then I was perceptive.

At my table, a player looking at me funny isn't grounds enough for me to ask for an ability check. No goal and approach was clearly articulated, so there is nothing for me to adjudicate into success, failure, or uncertainty.

If you did articulate a goal and approach and I judged it to have an uncertain outcome, I would not tell you what you believe on a failed check. I would likely say you don't accomplish what you tried to do and it would thus be on you to decide what your character believes.

If you then decided to believe the ghoul because your character has a personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw that suggests gullibility or the like, your choice may be worth Inspiration.

For what it's worth, that's how I'd do things. I hope this clarifies some part of my position.

 

[Shirebrok]

not much of a contradiction... just what happens when you read like a lawyer and not like a normal person talking...

Well, I am playing through the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Trilogy, sooo...

But seriously though, any person reading normally would indeed find that to be a contradiction. You know, because those two posts don't say the same thing.

WIsdome (insight) vs Charisma (Could be persuasion or deception but I think deception) is one of the many sub sets of skills we are talking about, and one that I thought I had the easiest to right and quickest to relay here...

Okay, so it was a contest roll, then?

I apologize. I suppose you feel like I'm putting you on trial, but I feel like we're not completely understanding one another because it's these little details that we miss which change the message. The Devil being in the details and whatnot.

Now if I was trying to be super detailed on the situation, I did fail... but you already could have guessed that...

That was clear the first time around.

But you know what? I think I get it.

Like Jedigamemaster, you simply use those skills to inform the setting of a scene, based mostly on your "gut feeling", as I understand it. And that's great. Feel free to do so.

I think we sort of lost sight of the main topic of the thread, which I believe to be "Can your NPCs force players to act a certain way using their skills?"
So far, the majority of people have said "No."
But there have been others who have said they use the skills, but wouldn't force players to act one way or another. Through the discussions I've read and have, those who do just use them to establish some fiction. And that's it.
I think the topic got a bit muddied somewhere along the line and now we have this big "not-really-a-disagreement".

 

[sunshadow21]

A truly funny imperative sentence considering the content in the rest of your rather lengthy post.

It wasn't directed at you. You were mentioned because it was your exchange with a few others that prompted someone else's question, and therefore, they were worth addressing in a different light based on what new people brought to the conversation, but I am not particularly concerned about explaining myself to you nor having you explain yourself to me at this point. That has already been done. It was a worthwhile exchange, but I highly doubt that either of us have much more to add in the areas that you seem to wish to focus on.

 

[sunshadow21]

But there have been others who have said they use the skills, but wouldn't force players to act one way or another.

I think part of the problem is that many people have phrased the question the way you did, and I don't think anyone is really trying to "force" anything. That being said, there is very clearly a wide range of opinions of how much the DM can use them to influence and shape character actions, so there has been a lot of very good and interesting conversation even if the original question was very narrow in it's wording.

I use it those skills in a way that will have a definite impact, not just for pure fluff and story, but forcing a particular outcome is definitely a stretch. Telling a player that their character is intimidated does very little to force any particular course of action on the player; it just makes the player ponder exactly how their character reacts to being intimidated and may impose a minor penalty to their next roll, nothing more. If the player wants to continue their previous course of action, they can certainly do so, and depending on how they do it, they may or may not feel the impact of being intimidated. A lot of good players can accept that their character is intimidated and still find ways to negate any difficulties it causes. If that qualifies as controlling a character, than 90% of what I do as a DM outside of combat would also qualify, whether it be other skills, class abilities, magic, or simply in the way I choose to frame the story. Telling a player that their character believes the NPC only to have it revealed later that the NPC was lying isn't any different from telling them they don't see anything only to have the sneaky rogue stab them in the back the next round. Both involve me, the DM, withholding information from the player, and thus influencing character actions; neither withholds any more or less information than the other, and neither forces the player down a specific course of action unless there are other surrounding circumstances, many of which will be under the player's control, or at worst, under the control of a party member who can help out.

 

[Shasarak]

Or, to phrase my question differently, are the social skills for PCs only?

I would not limit social skills to PCs. I am quite egalitarian in that respect.