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

[Sunseeker]

*snip*

seem more like one of my games...

That's great. I feel like you're taking this conversation as though I'm talking at you as though you are doing something wrong in your games and it's starting to make me feel like this is more of an argument than a discussion as I've stated clearly I'm not making judgments. My examples are just off-the-cuff examples. They're not supposed to be taken as the correct, or incorrect way to play.

I play the way I do largely because I'm my own worst enemy. I worked really really hard to create this stuff for the players. To make even the most mundane of mazes creative and engaging and fun. But because I put so much effort into it, I really want my players to find out all about it....but I don't want to spoil it, or take agency away from them by giving something away they could have worked to achieve and been rewarded for. So I play on the side of caution and tell players less rather than more and encourage them to work for the answer instead of just ask for it. This is especially fun for me when I get players who don't normally role-play much to get into the spirit of things by acting out their question in-character instead of simply asking me out of character. It may not require a roll in-game any more than out of game, but I find the game more enjoyable when Bob says: "I go take a look at each door." and I tell him about the doors, as opposed to Bob's player going "What do the doors look like?"

 

[iserith]

not that you suck at it, but that you are human... and as such you will never be able to relay all of the information verbally that even an inobservant person pulls in.

It's really very easy. I just do what the Basic Rules say: "The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on)."

If the players want more information then that, they can do stuff and explore. I try to limit the description to 3-4 sentences so that it's digestible.

I also assume you have both good days and bad. that sometimes you are right on point, and other times your not.

This is an area in which I'm very confident in my skills.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

With regard to anyone doing this to a PC, I agree with you. With regard to an NPC, however, if trying to get an NPC to help you with some sort of requested aid is not a valid use of a Charisma check, and if success on such a check does not yield the desired aid, then what is a Charisma check for?

the charisma check is to see how well you do at what you are doing...not how well you control my NPC... if you are asking for aid against my orc that only repects power, and you do so by crying then you have convinced him you are weak... he now pitties you but is no more likely to help you then before.

In that case I can choose to not be intimidated, which makes me wonder what the roll was for.

I don't understand what you mean by choose... being intimifated is an involuntary reaction, not a choice... you choose how your PC reacts to being intimidated...

It sounds like that was a role-playing choice you made for your character, not dependent on any die rolls.

and you base that on what?

Right, you're free, as DM, to determine that there is no chance to successfully influence the NPC and skip the roll altogether. Also, how you choose to role-play the NPC's response might preclude success from the outset.

the PC has the same freedom as the DM "I am going to relent" or "Roll and we see" or "I have a ability on my paper that makes me immune" but not "I just say no because I can just say no"

DM impartiality in no way implies that: 1. the NPC is generic and without detail, or 2. the DM is not role-playing the NPC and is only obeying the results of die rolls to determine the NPC's reactions. Die rolls are not necessary at all for a DM to be impartial. An impartial DM is one who runs the game in such a way so as not to take sides either for or against the PCs, but is rather serving fairly as a judge or referee ought to do. The players on the other hand ought to be taking the side of their PCs.

so what do you do when someone is an NPC sometimes and a PC other times? "Well today he is an NPC so go on and roll" and tomorrow "Sorry it's a PC now completely different rules"

I'm not sure how you're connecting role-assumption to controlling the whole world. I'm only suggesting that players control and advocate for their PCs.

maybe I just don't understand what you are saying then.

Acting out the result dictated by a die roll is not role-playing.

yes it is... roleplaying a critical hit, roleplaying a missed ref save, roll playing a missed save vs a charm... are all role-playing... so to is "Hey I got intimidated now how does the character react..."

Role-playing is inhabiting your character and making your character's decisions yourself.

yes based on the game... you make the choice in how to react... now react to your character being intimidated...this just happened now what?

The dice can't do it for you.

the dice can't be 100% beginning, middle, end all be all. No of course not. The dice are randomizers that act as impartial result generators to inform our role-playing

 

[Valmarius]

I find the game more enjoyable when Bob says: "I go take a look at each door." and I tell him about the doors, as opposed to Bob's player going "What do the doors look like?"

I prefer this method as well. Mainly because "I go take a look at each door" is part of the group conversation, and adds to the ongoing story. Whereas "What do the doors look like?" starts heading towards me and Bob having our own discussion while the others wait their turn.
Plus it lets me use one of my favourite spotlight sharing tricks, "Hey Jim, while Bob's checking out each of the doors what are you getting up to?"

 

[Sunseeker]

I prefer this method as well. Mainly because "I go take a look at each door" is part of the group conversation, and adds to the ongoing story. Whereas "What do the doors look like?" starts heading towards me and Bob having our own discussion while the others wait their turn.
Plus it lets me use one of my favourite spotlight sharing tricks, "Hey Jim, while Bob's checking out each of the doors what are you getting up to?"

It's also a great place for cooperative creation (which I don't do often), but Bob could go "look at the doors" and then I'll move on to Joe, meanwhile Bob is actually determining what the doors look like. And I'll come back to Bob and he'll tell me what the doors are like.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That's great. I feel like you're taking this conversation as though I'm talking at you as though you are doing something wrong in your games and it's starting to make me feel like this is more of an argument than a discussion as I've stated clearly I'm not making judgments.

I agree, not that you are argueing mind you, but I am clearly on the defensive because even when others say things like 'I do it my way you do it yours' it comes back to 'you are free to be wrong' witch is very greating...

My examples are just off-the-cuff examples. They're not supposed to be taken as the correct, or incorrect way to play.

I agree... infact I don't feel there is a correct or incorrect way to play... not even at 1 single table. My experience is even the most hardcore group fluxiates...

I play the way I do largely because I'm my own worst enemy. I worked really really hard to create this stuff for the players. To make even the most mundane of mazes creative and engaging and fun. But because I put so much effort into it, I really want my players to find out all about it....but I don't want to spoil it, or take agency away from them by giving something away they could have worked to achieve and been rewarded for. So I play on the side of caution and tell players less rather than more and encourage them to work for the answer instead of just ask for it.

everything you just typed fits me as much as you... we really are quite similar in a lot of ways...

This is especially fun for me when I get players who don't normally role-play much to get into the spirit of things by acting out their question in-character instead of simply asking me out of character. It may not require a roll in-game any more than out of game, but I find the game more enjoyable when Bob says: "I go take a look at each door." and I tell him about the doors, as opposed to Bob's player going "What do the doors look like?"

this is where we differ, I don't care witch way they do it....

It's really very easy.

and here we go again... it's not very easy the fact is you can not give the same wide amount of detail as real senses do...no one can.

I just do what the Basic Rules say: "The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on)."

We both do that, but one excepts questions and the other plays word games of reverse jeopardy "I'm sorry I only except questions in the form of actions"

If the players want more information then that, they can do stuff and explore. I try to limit the description to 3-4 sentences so that it's digestible.

And if a player asks a question about there senses that would normally be avalibul without describing it in the form of an action... again "WHat do the other doors look like" "Is there anything odd?" "Is there something I missed" "Does the door smell like a Christmas tree" "What color is the door?" "DOes my character know anything about this?"

or what if they ask about skills "Can I roll my arcana to know something about this?" "Can I roll nature to know what type of wood it is"

This is an area in which I'm very confident in my skills.

even if you are gods gift to DMs, you are still human... you can't ALWAYs get it right...

 

[iserith]

and here we go again... it's not very easy the fact is you can not give the same wide amount of detail as real senses do...no one can.

Providing the same detail as "real senses" do isn't what we're tasked with doing when describing the environment. We only need to provide enough information to create the fictional context necessary for the players to start describing what they do.

We both do that, but one excepts questions and the other plays word games of reverse jeopardy "I'm sorry I only except questions in the form of actions"

It's not a word game. It's describing what you want your character to do, step 2 in the basic conversation of the game.

And if a player asks a question about there senses that would normally be avalibul without describing it in the form of an action... again "WHat do the other doors look like" "Is there anything odd?" "Is there something I missed" "Does the door smell like a Christmas tree" "What color is the door?" "DOes my character know anything about this?"

or what if they ask about skills "Can I roll my arcana to know something about this?" "Can I roll nature to know what type of wood it is"

• "What do the other doors look like?" --> "I walk over to other doors and examine them closely."
• "Is there anything odd?" --> "I scrutinize the other doors for a few moments to see if there is anything odd about them."
• "Does the door smell like a Christmas tree?" --> "I take a big whiff of the door to see what it smells like."
• "Does my character know anything about this?" --> "I try to recall what I know about the historical significance of colorful doors that smell like Christmas trees."
• "Can I roll my arcana to know something about this?" --> "I try to recall what I know about magical doors that may resemble these doors before me."
• "Can I roll nature to know what type of wood it is?" --> "I examine the door and try to figure out what kind of wood comprises it."

"Is there something I missed?" is a strange one to me. It's like the player asking the DM to give him or her the answers.

"What color is the door?" must mean the DM sucks at describing the environment.

even if you are gods gift to DMs, you are still human... you can't ALWAYs get it right...

What would it look like to get something so simple wrong?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's not a word game. It's describing what you want your character to do, step 2 in the basic conversation of the game.

• "What do the other doors look like?" --> "I walk over to other doors and examine them closely."
• "Is there anything odd?" --> "I scrutinize the other doors for a few moments to see if there is anything odd about them."
• "Does the door smell like a Christmas tree?" --> "I take a big whiff of the door to see what it smells like."
• "Does my character know anything about this?" --> "I try to recall what I know about the historical significance of colorful doors that smell like Christmas trees."
• "Can I roll my arcana to know something about this?" --> "I try to recall what I know about magical doors that may resemble these doors before me."
• "Can I roll nature to know what type of wood it is?" --> "I examine the door and try to figure out what kind of wood comprises it."

you say its not a word game... look at your list. Every single thing is the PC looking for information (some of it you can argue may need more time but most are just to clarify) and all you did was rephrase it as an action... this is reverse Jeopardy. In the game Jeopardy all of your answers must be in the form of a question, so even if you get the right answer, if you didn't phrase it right you have to try again... in your case the word game is that the question is fine, but you don't except it unless it is phrased as an action.... to me that sounds insane...

"Is there something I missed?" is a strange one to me. It's like the player asking the DM to give him or her the answers.

to me it's a straight forward question. "You describe something, I am trying to figure it out, but can't...did I miss something?"

"What color is the door?" must mean the DM sucks at describing the environment.

The example I'm working with didn't list the color of the room, the lighting, the doors, the floor... so yea asking colors is a great example of asking for clarity without taking an ingame action.

What would it look like to get something so simple wrong?

You describe something, then someone asks you a question and instead of answering it you play a word game where they have to rephrase it as an action...

 

[iserith]

you say its not a word game... look at your list. Every single thing is the PC looking for information (some of it you can argue may need more time but most are just to clarify) and all you did was rephrase it as an action... this is reverse Jeopardy. In the game Jeopardy all of your answers must be in the form of a question, so even if you get the right answer, if you didn't phrase it right you have to try again... in your case the word game is that the question is fine, but you don't except it unless it is phrased as an action.... to me that sounds insane...

How a PC seeks information is important context for building the scene in my view. If you ask what the door smells like, shall I just assume you walk over to it and get your nose up close to it, thus leaving yourself open to attack from the pine-smelling mimic that has taken the form of a door? You didn't tell me you walked over to the door. You didn't tell me you got your nose up close to it. You might rightfully object. It makes more sense to me for you to tell me plainly what you do so that I have context to work with instead of asking a question which doesn't tell me much of anything that your character does.

to me it's a straight forward question. "You describe something, I am trying to figure it out, but can't...did I miss something?"

It's possible. What are you trying to figure out and how?

The example I'm working with didn't list the color of the room, the lighting, the doors, the floor... so yea asking colors is a great example of asking for clarity without taking an ingame action.

The noteworthy color of a door seems like something the DM would want to describe at the outset. Even so, "I look at the doors again and note their color."

You describe something, then someone asks you a question and instead of answering it you play a word game where they have to rephrase it as an action...

Funny, but clearly not what I was referring to. Also, I do believe you've just said I'm doing things wrong. Should I relish in my newfound right to be outraged?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How a PC seeks information is important context for building the scene in my view. If you ask what the door smells like, shall I just assume you walk over to it and get your nose up close to it, thus leaving yourself open to attack from the pine-smelling mimic that has taken the form of a door? You didn't tell me you walked over to the door. You didn't tell me you got your nose up close to it. You might rightfully object. It makes more sense to me for you to tell me plainly what you do so that I have context to work with instead of asking a question which doesn't tell me much of anything that your character does.
[

See you again take it as an action...its a question.. You answer it like your friend just asked it...

It's possible. What are you trying to figure out and how?



The noteworthy color of a door seems like something the DM would want to describe at the outset. Even so, "I look at the doors again and note their color."

so if there is nothing note worthy then that is theanswer,,,,

Funny, but clearly not what I was referring to. Also, I do believe you've just said I'm doing things wrong. Should I relish in my newfound right to be outraged?

you are quite correct after hours and days of trying to just get you tel say there is not anything wrong I have totally done what you did from the outset... So you win you argued u until I Cod keep my cool no longer... In done