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

[GMforPowergamers]

It may just be me, but this seems fairly clear-cut.

DM: You find a room full of doors, what would you like to do?
P1: I check out the door nearest to my on the right.
DM: Ok, the door is about 7 feet tall, wooden, and roughly shaped like a christmas tree, anything else?
P2: I check the door for traps.
DM: Ok, roll *whatever check*, *dice hit the table, total 16* okay you don't find any obvious traps, the door is not locked, but you can't detect anything at all beyond the door.
P3: Using my magical knowledge I want to see if the door has any magical elements.
....and so on.

As you can see there is a progression from general information, to specific information. Each step made with an in-game action. One guy pokes the door with his finger. One guy pokes the door while specifically looking for any hidden mechanisms, the 3rd guy pokes the door with his magic for any magical elements.

This is as opposed to simply asking the DM "Is it trapped?" or "Is it magical?" The players are doing something first and the DM is adjudicating the results based on their actions. Gently caressing the door may provoke a different reaction than hitting it with your sword. Asking the DM "If I hit it with my sword, will I learn anything?"

see this is again making up some strange thing that is in no way related to what we are talking about. Your orginal scenero is the exact same in both of our games. how ever in my game if the PC wanted he can just say "Hey is there anything interesting about the other doors" or "Hey do we know anything about this?"

in his games the answer to both is "WHat action is your character taking" witch is funny because he claims his game isn't a board game but everything has to be put in terms of an action... hm I have to think about that.

 

[iserith]

see this is again making up some strange thing that is in no way related to what we are talking about. Your orginal scenero is the exact same in both of our games. how ever in my game if the PC wanted he can just say "Hey is there anything interesting about the other doors" or "Hey do we know anything about this?"

More like "Describe to me what you want to do..." That's what is done after the DM describes the environment in my view. Though if isn't the first time I've had to say something like that, I'll probably make a joke.

witch is funny because he claims his game isn't a board game but everything has to be put in terms of an action...

Not everything.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't use the same approach in 5e as I use in 3e or 4e. I'll leave that topic at that for this thread.

Neither do I. 5e's DM Empowerment vs 3e's RAW obsession vs 4e balance each made for a different game experience that called for different DMing approaches. I quite enjoy the approach I use to running 5e.

But you linked the Role v Roll, bad-rules-make-good-games article.

 

[Uchawi]

I never saw my DM style change drastically across editions. Just to many universal truths on how to run a good game to discard them based on different mechanical flavor.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree. I don't think arbitrariness is a necessary outcome and clearly a DM should be fair and consistent when making rulings. Those rulings might be based on rules or they might not be.

That's a poor argument. "Doesn't necessarily" isn't a sufficient defense against the charge that a fluid interpretation of the rules lends itself to arbitrary judgements.

I would say they serve the DM and the DM uses them in his or her role to help the group achieve the goals of play.

I'm saying that absolute DM fiat, without baseline assumptions, does not serve the goals of play. The goals of play are best served when the players have reasonable expectations of what outcomes are possible. Your argument that the rules are fluid and entirely subject to DM fiat at all times does not establish a useful baseline.

I'm not suggesting it - I'm saying it outright because I believe it's true based on my reading of the rules. The only limit is that the DM can't describe what the players want to do, including how they act, what they think, and what they say. Players control that part of the conversation. The DM controls the rest.

Special pleading. You've established that all rules are subject to DM fiat, but the one rule about players determining what their players do is exempt from that fiat. You haven't established why that one rule is sacrosanct.

It's me saying I think, based on your comments, that you view the game as if it were a previous edition which is a root cause of our disagreement.

You have no idea how I view the game, and it's certainly not like it's a previous edition. I further find it ludicrous that you think that this edition somehow empowered the DM more than previous editions did. Granted, this one makes it more obvious, but it's not special in the rule zero case.

I do view the rules as presented as the baseline assumption of the game that my players will bring. I don't think they should be changed or viewed as fluid because that prevents the players from making rational choices based on expectations. That's not to say they can't change, or that the DM isn't responsible for making rulings when the rules fail to cover a situation, but that the DM should not be changing rules willy-nilly or on a whim. Your blanket argument that the rules serve the DM result in arbitrary enforcement of rules as a supported playstyle. Why, then, have a set of rules if your first inclination is to ignore them?

No, it is not an accusation of "badwrong." See my comment above.

Yes, it is. You told me I was doing it wrong, that I my choices (which you don't know) don't fit an RPG. That's an argument from a narrow point of view, and it's incredibly smug and elitist.

The rules say that a 10th-level barbarian can frighten someone with his or her menacing presence. Then there are some mechanics provided that the DM can choose to use to resolve uncertainty in that effort - uncertainty that the DM establishes, not the rules. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions per the basic conversation of the game. If I as DM base that narration on how the targeted player thinks the action will turn out, I am still following the rules.

No, the rules establish that if you use the ability, the target makes a save. The save is a roll of the dice, not some other mechanic. There's nothing in the rules that say, "determine if the DM thinks there's conflict when you use this ability before rolling your save. Depending on that determination, anything the DM wishes may happen." You're inserting this concept of uncertainty when and where you want to to justify ignoring the rules as written. Again, you can do this, but please stop pretending that there's a 'determine if there's uncertainty' step in the PHB or DMG. That's your rule, and you apply it how you want to, and that's perfectly fine. But it's not part of the baseline rules at all.

Not wrong, but it fits with the correlation I'm sensing with regard to those who disagree with my position. Many of those who disagree with me let their players control when ability checks are made as if they are powers that can be activated. I don't think that is what the rules intend, even though it's certainly a common way for people to play. I think that method arose in 3e and 4e (both games I play and like), but is not compatible with D&D 5e as I see it.

Special pleading, again. You can't just say that 5e is exceptional in this regard as if it actually supports your position to do so. It may be special, it may support your position, but you can't get there through assertion. There's nothing in 5e that, in any way, explicitly establishes that your choices are correct. The way that Intimidating Presence works seems to contradict it, at least as far as you choosing to ignore the explicit functioning of that ability. I get that you have a mindset and a method that works for you and yours, but it is not inherently better than another's just because you think it is. Nor is it more correct. You choose to add player immunity to social abilities as you wish, but that's not inherently better than allowing those abilities to work on PCs. Nor is either position clearly supported in the rules -- they both can claim equal precedence (your ruling on Intimidating Presence, though...). You've been smug and making assumptions about how people do things at their table with the implication that if they just opened their minds and agreed with you, their games would become better. I know what you're doing, I fully understand it, I do many similar things at my table (I give my players great agency with their characters to determine things about the world and to engage as they choose), but I reject the idea that the game constructs of characters are somehow uniquely sacrosanct just because there are players behind them.

To me, if the player asks me 'I'd like to make an insight check to see if my character thinks this guy is telling the truth,' I don't see anything wrong with that because that's the player wanting to tap into the character's abilities and awareness. I'll allow the roll, and, based on the result, tell the player what their character thinks -- 'yep, this guy is shady as heck' or 'he seems pretty honest to you'. The player can then decide what they want the character to do with that. It seems to me that you are less willing to allow the players to tap into their character's abilities and awareness, instead preferring to leave the interaction entirely at the roleplaying level, escalating such die rolls to crucial points of conflict in the scene. I don't see much point in that, I'd prefer the decisions the players make on the information to be the crux of the scene, not the die roll to resolve uncertainty.

 

[sunshadow21]

On the player side, you seem to have misunderstood the position of myself and others that PCs not be bound by the results of Charisma checks. My position isn't that the roll have no effect on the PC, but that the roll not occur in the first place. I agree with you that if a roll is made it should have an impact, which is why in the case of Charisma checks that would limit PC agency, I don't make them.

That seems to be the big divide: when to roll for charisma based skills. Most people I've met that have started since 3rd edition see the results of a charisma check as being no different from the results of any other check, and therefore no more of a loss of player agency than a failed stealth roll. Those who approach the game with a more classic mindset tend to be the ones that eschew skill checks in general, not just social skills, but most of those people I've met tend to eschew all skill checks, not just social skills. I can understand that a lot better than picking a small group of skills and drawing the line there as somehow being too far in terms of player agency. I've never seen social skills have any more impact on player agency than other skills, even in groups where they are routinely used both on NPCs and PCs. I guess my biggest difficulty is that no skill, ability, or magic spell has any more effect on player agency than what the players are willing to accept, and virtually every player I've met since starting to play (which admittedly is very strong on the "who cares, it's just another skill" side of the fence, but not entirely) have had no compunction with using social skills on PCs, or if they did, the compunction was in using skill checks in general, with little regard given to the charisma based skills specifically.

It would seem that on the surface those skills have a greater impact than other skills, but they really don't; players that are willing to accept a minor penalty to a roll or two are perfectly capable, and often do, ignore what the dice roll says, and have no serious problems doing so. In the case of a deception roll or a diplomacy roll, it's really no different than me simply saying as a DM "you don't know anymore than what the NPC is saying" or "you really need to go this way unless you want to bring in a new PC or sit out this adventure because I don't have the time or energy to run a split party right now." In neither case is the PC hindered anymore than if they fail a stealth roll and don't get to find out about the sneaky scout following them before the scout returns to base and reports, making it harder for the PCs to act when they get to the base. The other factor that tends to reduce any limits on player agency is that for these skills to truly work, they have to be successfully used on every present PC (or NPC, if the PCs are using it) and that is really not all that easy. Convincing one PC that the traitor is telling the truth really has zero impact when two other PCs present know full and well that he is lying through his teeth; the one PC was still successfully deceived, but that deception doesn't last long enough for any kind of player agency to be inhibited if the other players act quick enough, and the player of the character deceived will generally wait for them to act precisely for that reason. At worst, the deceived player is caught flat-footed when the combat breaks out and doesn't get to act in the surprise round.

If that is limiting player agency, than 90% of what I do as a DM, both in combat and out, could be taken as limiting player agency by someone really looking to take it to extremes, and that seems a bit of a stretch to me. If the argument was for all skills, the argument would make a lot more sense, but picking out charisma skills as somehow different seems very odd to me. When it is used the way that Iserith uses it, than it makes more sense, but I've never seen them used that way in any game I've ever been in. One game came close, but it was inconsistent enough of a game overall that it had little impact.

Exactly. There's no point in making a check that doesn't resolve anything in the fiction, which is why I don't call for them, but I wouldn't call that ignoring the rules. The rules tell us that the players are in control of their characters, and we can't ignore one part of the rules in favor of another. Instead we need to understand how the rules are meant to work together and what purpose ability checks serve within that context.

If more people agreed that using those skills takes away player agency, you would have a lot more support in this thread. You and Iserith are taking the position that the DM cannot tell the player with anything short of magic how to run their character, but you do it each and every time you don't tell them about a invisible rogue about to backstab them or otherwise shape your dialogue based on what you think they should know, whether that decision is based on roleplay or dice rolling. Every single thing you do as a DM affects that PC and how they react; it may not always be direct, but you, as a DM cannot act without putting limits or constraints on the PCs. Even something as not fully describing a room puts limits on a PC. Charisma based skills do this no more and no less than anything else in the game, so it seems like an odd place to draw the line.

At this point, I'm pretty much done posting on this thread because there is really nothing more that can be said. You and a few others very clearly believe that Charisma based skills are special, myself and others do not, and it's highly unlikely that either side will be able to truly convince the other of anything other than it's a good thing that not every group has to play the game the same way.

EDIT: I think a big difficulty seems to come from how much impact people expect for a dice roll to be worth it. Most people don't believe that a charisma based skill has to force a PC to act a certain way in order to have a valid and notable impact. Putting up hurdles still has impact without forcing a PC to go down or ignore any given path; it simply makes certain paths more challenging, nothing less and nothing more. Player agency does not have to be compromised in the least, and the dice roll still has an impact that the player has to deal with.

 

[Sunseeker]

see this is again making up some strange thing that is in no way related to what we are talking about. Your orginal scenero is the exact same in both of our games. how ever in my game if the PC wanted he can just say "Hey is there anything interesting about the other doors" or "Hey do we know anything about this?"

That's fine, I'm not attempting to engage in a who's way is better debate. I'm simply pointing out that I found iserith's method easily understandable. If you wanted to ask your DM if you know anything about this strange room for doors, you simply do it in character. "I rack my brain to see if I learned anything at *point in past* about this sort of a room." Or "I take a look at the other doors to see if there's anything interesting about them."

in his games the answer to both is "WHat action is your character taking" witch is funny because he claims his game isn't a board game but everything has to be put in terms of an action... hm I have to think about that.

I think the distinction is what comes first, the roll or the role? In iserith's case he wants people to role and then roll, where typically board games have you roll and then what you do is based on the roll. It's dice as adjudication v. dice as determination.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That seems to be the big divide: when to roll for charisma based skills. Most people I've met that have started since 3rd edition see the results of a charisma check as being no different from the results of any other check, and therefore no more of a loss of player agency than a failed stealth roll. Those who approach the game with a more classic mindset tend to be the ones that eschew skill checks in general, not just social skills, but most of those people I've met tend to eschew all skill checks, not just social skills. I can understand that a lot better than picking a small group of skills and drawing the line there as somehow being too far in terms of player agency. I've never seen social skills have any more impact on player agency than other skills, even in groups where they are routinely used both on NPCs and PCs. I guess my biggest difficulty is that no skill, ability, or magic spell has any more effect on player agency than what the players are willing to accept, and virtually every player I've met since starting to play (which admittedly is very strong on the "who cares, it's just another skill" side of the fence, but not entirely) have had no compunction with using social skills on PCs, or if they did, the compunction was in using skill checks in general, with little regard given to the charisma based skills specifically.

It would seem that on the surface those skills have a greater impact than other skills, but they really don't; players that are willing to accept a minor penalty to a roll or two are perfectly capable, and often do, ignore what the dice roll says, and have no serious problems doing so. In the case of a deception roll or a diplomacy roll, it's really no different than me simply saying as a DM "you don't know anymore than what the NPC is saying" or "you really need to go this way unless you want to bring in a new PC or sit out this adventure because I don't have the time or energy to run a split party right now." In neither case is the PC hindered anymore than if they fail a stealth roll and don't get to find out about the sneaky scout following them before the scout returns to base and reports, making it harder for the PCs to act when they get to the base. The other factor that tends to reduce any limits on player agency is that for these skills to truly work, they have to be successfully used on every present PC (or NPC, if the PCs are using it) and that is really not all that easy. Convincing one PC that the traitor is telling the truth really has zero impact when two other PCs present know full and well that he is lying through his teeth; the one PC was still successfully deceived, but that deception doesn't last long enough for any kind of player agency to be inhibited if the other players act quick enough, and the player of the character deceived will generally wait for them to act precisely for that reason. At worst, the deceived player is caught flat-footed when the combat breaks out and doesn't get to act in the surprise round.

If that is limiting player agency, than 90% of what I do as a DM, both in combat and out, could be taken as limiting player agency by someone really looking to take it to extremes, and that seems a bit of a stretch to me. If the argument was for all skills, the argument would make a lot more sense, but picking out charisma skills as somehow different seems very odd to me. When it is used the way that Iserith uses it, than it makes more sense, but I've never seen them used that way in any game I've ever been in. One game came close, but it was inconsistent enough of a game overall that it had little impact.



If more people agreed that using those skills takes away player agency, you would have a lot more support in this thread. You and Iserith are taking the position that the DM cannot tell the player with anything short of magic how to run their character, but you do it each and every time you don't tell them about a invisible rogue about to backstab them or otherwise shape your dialogue based on what you think they should know, whether that decision is based on roleplay or dice rolling. Every single thing you do as a DM affects that PC and how they react; it may not always be direct, but you, as a DM cannot act without putting limits or constraints on the PCs. Even something as not fully describing a room puts limits on a PC. Charisma based skills do this no more and no less than anything else in the game, so it seems like an odd place to draw the line.

At this point, I'm pretty much done posting on this thread because there is really nothing more that can be said. You and a few others very clearly believe that Charisma based skills are special, myself and others do not, and it's highly unlikely that either side will be able to truly convince the other of anything other than it's a good thing that not every group has to play the game the same way.

EDIT: I think a big difficulty seems to come from how much impact people expect for a dice roll to be worth it. Most people don't believe that a charisma based skill has to force a PC to act a certain way in order to have a valid and notable impact. Putting up hurdles still has impact without forcing a PC to go down or ignore any given path; it simply makes certain paths more challenging, nothing less and nothing more. Player agency does not have to be compromised in the least, and the dice roll still has an impact that the player has to deal with.

Would that I had wrote this. Alas, the words escaped me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's fine, I'm not attempting to engage in a who's way is better debate. I'm simply pointing out that I found iserith's method easily understandable. If you wanted to ask your DM if you know anything about this strange room for doors, you simply do it in character. "I rack my brain to see if I learned anything at *point in past* about this sort of a room." Or "I take a look at the other doors to see if there's anything interesting about them."

the disconnect for me here is very much "I take a look at the other doors"

just being in the room my character has already seen them, but they were not described, so I don't know what my character already knows... instead of using an in game action "I take a look" I am just asking for clarification "What did my character already see" the same with this whole "I rack my brain..." or as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] said "Recall lore" neaither of those actions are correct in game...


If I walk into a room with 3 doors, I see all three doors. If I already know about a street gang down the road, or who the president is, or what board games I know, then I don't have to 'recall lore', or 'rack my brain' I just know. so when I ask out of game about them, it is because it is a reflex for my character to know it...

I think the distinction is what comes first, the roll or the role?

I think in my game the role comes first too... I just don't think that roll can be completely left out in most cases (like say social skills)

 

[Sunseeker]

the disconnect for me here is very much "I take a look at the other doors"

just being in the room my character has already seen them, but they were not described, so I don't know what my character already knows... instead of using an in game action "I take a look" I am just asking for clarification "What did my character already see" the same with this whole "I rack my brain..." or as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] said "Recall lore" neaither of those actions are correct in game...

But there's an inlaid assumption here: that you saw the doors. Did you? When I walk into any room IRL there are plenty of times I survey the room and get a good feel for how it looks. There are other times when I walk right on in. Can you never say you just walked in to a room without any thought or question of what might be there?

I think you have been implying something and haven't stated it until now: that your character didn't just walk in that they walked in and actively took a look around. I think it's fair to say that sometimes people don't do that. So you shouldn't assume that the DM knows that you know that you took a look around. Say it. "As I walk in the room I take a good look around."
DM: you notice 4 doors, one like a tree, one like a sun, one like a flower and one like a snowflake.
"Okay, I go examine the snowflake door for traps...."

I wouldn't assume any of my players would have any idea what the room looks like until they say "I take a look around." One of the easiest ways to miss things I find is that players don't take the time to look, they just assume that being there means they would have seen it and their lack of communication on this is not the cause for the DMs lack of return communication. This situation plays out like this:
DM: you all enter the large round room with funny doors.
P1: *stares intently at the DM*
DM: So what are you doing?
P1: *well the dm didn't tell us anything is here so there must be nothing here* We go on to the next room!