D&D 5E (2014) Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

[MostlyDm]

Also, for what it's worth, what I want out of DMing isn't the same as what I enjoy as a player. I bet I'd enjoy playing in a game you ran.

 

[Shirebrok]

So... There still isn't anybody expecting players to behave a certain way after an NPC makes a social skill check against them, right?

Just wondering why this thread is still going on.

 

[MostlyDm]

I dunno, like I said up thread, I sometimes roll social skill checks for NPCs. I let the player I roll against decide what that means, same way I get to decide when they roll against an NPC. The rolls m help when the outcome of the dialogue is not clear.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this correctly. It seems like you are coming at this from a viewpoint that is completely and diametrically opposed to the way I understand the game to work. Are you saying that if I tell the players that hidden and invisible creatures are present and where they are, something their characters couldn't possibly know, allowing the players use that meta-game knowledge to inform the choices they make for their PCs, that it's the equivalent of letting the players decide how their characters feel, what they think, and how they act?

Because to me nothing could be less immersive than giving the players information the PCs don't have, unless it's telling the players, "Your character has been persuaded/intimidated/deceived, and now you must act accordingly."

 

[Hriston]

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.

An ability check tells you how successful you are in what you are trying to accomplish. If I'm trying to get help from an Orc, it matters how my approach, as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] would call it, touches upon the Orc's traits, bonds, and flaws. If my approach of crying and pleading with the Orc interacts unfavorably with the Orc's trait of respecting only displays of strength, then you, as DM, can decide that my attempt to obtain aid has no chance of success. No roll is required to see how well I cry.

Similarly, no roll is needed to see how intimidating the Orc seems, because I decide if my PC feels intimidated by him.

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...

By telling me my PC is intimidated you're limiting my choices to acting out of fear and terror. My character must feel timid, and the actions I choose must be consistent with that feeling if I am to fully play the role you have decided for my character.

and you base that on what?

You said your character always acted intimidated. That sounds like a choice.

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"

What's the difference? Why can't the player just say, "I know the Orc is putting on a good show of being intimidating, but I'm tough adventurer and I'm not impressed."

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 have some DM PCs that I use, and when I do they are subject to die rolls that determine their choices because I believe as DM I am responsible for the environment and the PCs should have the spotlight in terms of agency. My DM run PC is part of that environment and so I let the players interact with and influence that character's choices just as they influence the environment.

If I were to play that same character in a game where I am not the DM, however, I would expect to have full control over how he thinks and acts.

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

A player who gets to decide whether his or her PC is persuaded by the arguments of an NPC is not controlling how persuasive that NPC is. The player is simply deciding what his or her character does after hearing those arguments. The player is deciding if the PC is persuaded.

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..."

That's play-acting or acting out a scripted outcome. There's no meaningful decision involved in receiving a critical hit. You just take damage. You have no choice. Role-playing is authoring your character by making the meaningful choices your character faces. You can't do that if someone else is telling you how your character feels inside.

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?

If I get to choose it would make more sense if you said, "The Orc tries to intimidate you. How do you react?" Then I would have a choice. The way you say it I have no choice but to act intimidated.

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

How often do you see players rolling to see what their characters do? If you have, they probably weren't too invested in the game.

 

[Imaculata]

By the way, I'm one of those DM's that uses a graded difficulty scale to determine how successful a player is at a skill check, and I was wondering if others do the same. I basically have the basic DC for a task, but if the players roll just above, or just below the DC, I alter the description that is given.

So for example, if you are trying to pick a lock, then you could fail, you could almost succeed, you could just succeed, and you could succeed with ease. Same with social skills. Suppose you are trying to convince a merchant to lower the price on an expensive ring. The player makes a decent effort to convince the merchant that the ring is not worth as much as he's asking, and so I determine this requires a DC 15 diplomacy check. If you roll anywhere between 10 and 14, then I may rule that you only manage to reduce the price by a few silver. If you roll a natural 1, then the merchant might get offended by what you are suggesting, or he might suspect that you really want the ring, and raise the price instead. If you roll 20, then he might not only lower the price, but also want to give you a discount if you buy another item.

Do other people do this as well?

 

[Pauln6]

Attribute bonuses for most characters is -5 to +5. Add 5, multiply by 2.5 round up, then add 5 again if the player doesn't want to comply, because we roll d20s, not d10s. Social Interaction Stat DC table:

Indifferent. . .Resist. . .Stat Mod
8 .. . . . . . . . . 13. . . .-2 (stat of 6-7)
10. . . . . . . . . 15. . . .-1 (stat of 8-9)
13. . . . . . . . . 18. . . . 0 (10-11)
15. . . . . . . . . 20. . . +1 (12-13)
18. . . . . . . . . 23. . . +2 (14-15)
20. . . . . . . . . 25. . . +3 (16-17)
23. . . . . . . . . 28. . . +4 (18-19)
25. . . . . . . . . 30. . . +5 (20-21)

Typically, 5e has people rolling d20+2-5 unskilled, d20 +4-11 skilled, and d20+6-17 when a specialized mechanic is in place. The average unskilled check will frequently clear 13-15, the skilled check will often clear 20, and the specialist will frequently clear 23.

I usually cut and paste monster stats onto a word doc for ease of reference. When I do so, I look up their 2e stats and add 2e morale score to the stat block. This was designed to take into account monster personalities. You can adjust up and down depending on situation numbers, leaders, magic users and mission but it gives a DC for intimidate that requires very little thought.

 

[sunshadow21]

By the way, I'm one of those DM's that uses a graded difficulty scale to determine how successful a player is at a skill check, and I was wondering of others do the same. I basically have the basic DC for a task, but if the players roll just above, or just below the DC, I alter the description that is given.

So for example, if you are trying to pick a lock, then you could fail, you could almost succeed, you could just succeed, and you could succeed with ease. Same with social skills. Suppose you are trying to convince a merchant to lower the price on an expensive ring. The player makes a decent effort to convince the merchant that the ring is not worth as much as he's asking, and so I determine this requires a DC 15 diplomacy check. If you roll anywhere between 10 and 14, then I may rule that you only manage to reduce the price by a few silver. If you roll a natural 1, then the merchant might get offended by what you are suggesting, or he might suspect that you really want the ring, and raise the price instead. If you roll 20, then he might not only lower the price, but also want to give you a discount if you buy another item.

Do other people do this as well?

That's generally how I run it as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

An ability check tells you how successful you are in what you are trying to accomplish. If I'm trying to get help from an Orc, it matters how my approach, as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] would call it, touches upon the Orc's traits, bonds, and flaws. If my approach of crying and pleading with the Orc interacts unfavorably with the Orc's trait of respecting only displays of strength, then you, as DM, can decide that my attempt to obtain aid has no chance of success. No roll is required to see how well I cry.

Similarly, no roll is needed to see how intimidating the Orc seems, because I decide if my PC feels intimidated by him.





By telling me my PC is intimidated you're limiting my choices to acting out of fear and terror. My character must feel timid, and the actions I choose must be consistent with that feeling if I am to fully play the role you have decided for my character.




You said your character always acted intimidated. That sounds like a choice.







What's the difference? Why can't the player just say, "I know the Orc is putting on a good show of being intimidating, but I'm tough adventurer and I'm not impressed."








I have some DM PCs that I use, and when I do they are subject to die rolls that determine their choices because I believe as DM I am responsible for the environment and the PCs should have the spotlight in terms of agency. My DM run PC is part of that environment and so I let the players interact with and influence that character's choices just as they influence the environment.

If I were to play that same character in a game where I am not the DM, however, I would expect to have full control over how he thinks and acts.





A player who gets to decide whether his or her PC is persuaded by the arguments of an NPC is not controlling how persuasive that NPC is. The player is simply deciding what his or her character does after hearing those arguments. The player is deciding if the PC is persuaded.






That's play-acting or acting out a scripted outcome. There's no meaningful decision involved in receiving a critical hit. You just take damage. You have no choice. Role-playing is authoring your character by making the meaningful choices your character faces. You can't do that if someone else is telling you how your character feels inside.






If I get to choose it would make more sense if you said, "The Orc tries to intimidate you. How do you react?" Then I would have a choice. The way you say it I have no choice but to act intimidated.



How often do you see players rolling to see what their characters do? If you have, they probably weren't too invested in the game.

If someone uses the fear spell on your character, or if the use Intimidating Presence ability were used upon your character, you'd be limited as well. It is only the difference in mechanics that achieves the limitation that matters, or are you with Iserth that even then the player can decide to ignore the effect?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

this is so insane... the whole argument comes down to one side wanting to use the in game world and the other the out of game world... but the people who want to use the out of game world are looking down on those that use the in game world...

An ability check tells you how successful you are in what you are trying to accomplish. If I'm trying to get help from an Orc, it matters how my approach, as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] would call it, touches upon the Orc's traits, bonds, and flaws. If my approach of crying and pleading with the Orc interacts unfavorably with the Orc's trait of respecting only displays of strength, then you, as DM, can decide that my attempt to obtain aid has no chance of success. No roll is required to see how well I cry.

Similarly, no roll is needed to see how intimidating the Orc seems, because I decide if my PC feels intimidated by him.

PCs get to make choices on things all the time. Dice rolls happen all the time. When using something on the sheets to interact we role play that too, but we don't allow 'My extremely dexterous character ducks at the last moment under the arrow' when the orc rolls a 20 on his ranged attack... it is the same thing with social skills, there are systems set up (mostly it's roll d20 add mod see how good or bad you did...I mean that's 90% of D&D systems) to help you role play... we just use that system.

By telling me my PC is intimidated you're limiting my choices to acting out of fear and terror. My character must feel timid, and the actions I choose must be consistent with that feeling if I am to fully play the role you have decided for my character.

I didn't just randomly decide something and force it on you. They system is set up to show how intimidating someone is... I am using that system.

You said your character always acted intimidated. That sounds like a choice.

It's a choice informed by mechanic though, I just instead of argueing role played how my character acted...

What's the difference? Why can't the player just say, "I know the Orc is putting on a good show of being intimidating, but I'm tough adventurer and I'm not impressed."

because that doesn't take the ingame world into account at all. You are sitting at a table in a safe envoiroment, I assume your character has at least a dozen if not hundreds of other things happening to to him or her that are not happening to you. It then comes down to the DM having to describe perfectly the difference between a -1 intimidate score and a +15 intimidate score and each point between. It also ignore the basics of the game.

"I know he is just putting on a show" sounds like the worst meta gaming... it no different then "Gee I don't care if I go after a hard challenge, worst case scenero I draw a new PC"

I have some DM PCs that I use, and when I do they are subject to die rolls that determine their choices because I believe as DM I am responsible for the environment and the PCs should have the spotlight in terms of agency. My DM run PC is part of that environment and so I let the players interact with and influence that character's choices just as they influence the environment.

I'm not talking about a DM pc... I am talking about a character that this week is a PC and next is an NPC

If I were to play that same character in a game where I am not the DM, however, I would expect to have full control over how he thinks and acts.

SO you think good roleplaying changes this Tuesday to next Tuesday?

A player who gets to decide whether his or her PC is persuaded by the arguments of an NPC is not controlling how persuasive that NPC is.

not your way, your way the player only has how persuasice the GM is...nothing about the character matters...

if DM1 sucks at being persuasive and DM2 is a 'playa and salesman' who can sell ice to Alaskans in the winter, and both sit to run the same adventure where a dashing rogue with a cha 18 and training/expertise in persuasion is trying to get the PC to do something you will get widly different results your way... because you don't care about the game world at all just the real world.

The player is simply deciding what his or her character does after hearing those arguments. The player is deciding if the PC is persuaded.

The player isn't in the world the character is...

That's play-acting or acting out a scripted outcome.

no it's not and don't be insuliting...

There's no meaningful decision involved in receiving a critical hit.

no more then there is in being intimidated, its how your REACT to it that matters...

You just take damage. You have no choice.

right because no matter how good at something you are out of game that is what happened in the world we are playing in...same with social skills

Role-playing is authoring your character by making the meaningful choices your character faces. You can't do that if someone else is telling you how your character feels inside.

You also can't do that if you don't have the information about the world around your character... in this case you have 'how X is the DM' but not 'how X is the character' (fill in x with Persuasive, intimidating, charismatic, strong, fast, smart... it doesn't matter)

If I get to choose it would make more sense if you said, "The Orc tries to intimidate you. How do you react?" Then I would have a choice. The way you say it I have no choice but to act intimidated.

these then leads to "Well how intimidating is the orc?"

How often do you see players rolling to see what their characters do? If you have, they probably weren't too invested in the game.

what they do... I think never (maybe I'm not remembering one but I can't think of one)... on the other hand roling to see HOW WELL THET DO... all the time, that's how the game works

If someone uses the fear spell on your character, or if the use Intimidating Presence ability were used upon your character, you'd be limited as well. It is only the difference in mechanics that achieves the limitation that matters, or are you with Iserth that even then the player can decide to ignore the effect?

the funny part is they are going to tell you how different that is. Because one made up thing on a piece of paper meant to reflect the reality of the in game world is more important then a different made up thing on a piece of paper meant to reflect the realit of the in game world...