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

[iserith]

Iserith, after reconsidering some of your posts here, reading through your Twitter, and considering the first 2-and-bit transcripts that I have reviewed so far, I have come to a tentative conclusion. I sort of suspected it/alluded to it up thread quite a while ago.

We have massively different goals from games. Your desired result is much more akin to a novel (your only real protest was that I was using a written transcript to form my opinion, so... Call it a live radio broadcast if done in person, if you like).

My goal is the same as what is suggested in the Basic Rules: have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story during play. In the case of the campaign you're reading, another goal we set was to create a transcript of play to share with others.

You're interested in minimizing randomness and rolling, keeping people in character at all times if possible, and telling the story you want to tell. The characters aren't necessarily even co-writers, they're supposed to *live* the story. It's closer to performance art, in a sense. That's a noble goal and it's clear your players respond well to it.

I strive to keep a balance between outright success/failure and uncertainty as per the DMG, page 236-237. If you're a skilled player, you will probably remove uncertainty more often than someone who isn't as skilled.

I think it's fallen out of favor but I still like the Gamist/Narrativist/Simulationist distinction for some purposes. And... In the classic G/N/S breakdown I don't think there's any question where you fall, right? You're a narrativist through and through.

I used to think I was a simulationist. But I'm not really. I'm a narrativist at heart, I just find I like it most when my focus is on pretending to be a similationist, and using the narrative and the game on a meta level to serve this purpose.

Though I used to be into it, that theory has certainly fallen out of favor with me and I'm not sure you're using those terms as they were intended to be used. It's not a thing I care to debate though. We don't need these labels to communicate our goals and techniques.

As much as I respect your style, I don't totally agree. For one thing... When I want to write fiction, or engage in pure free form role playing, I do those things. I don't see D&D as the appropriate vessel, but it's cool that it works for your group.

I'm doing neither of those things.

I relish the role of dice and random chance in changing the outcomes of events in ways I could never have foreseen. Minimizing rolls is not of any interest to me. If it was, I'd play a different game. D&D in particular has way worse roll randomness and narrative disruption than, say, FATE.

I too think the role of dice is important and random chance makes for interesting outcomes. I am not interested in "minimizing" rolls for its own sake. I strive to keep a balance as recommended (effectively) by the DMG. It probably only looks like I'm "minimizing" rolls relative to your own experience.

These days I actually kind of avoid creating a true story/plot in the traditional sense. Instead I create dozens and then hundreds and then thousands of characters with their own goals and skills and then unleash them.

So do I. I organize my games according to Dungeon World's Front system.

I see the characters and the players as two distinct entities, with the PCs just another collection of characters in the world. I encourage my players to run multiple characters, and let them run my NPCs at times if it seems like they have a good handle on the personality involved.

I see the PCs as protagonists. Multiple characters are also not a problem. Players sometimes run NPCs, create them wholesale from time to time, and decide their fate. I actually show this in the transcripts.

I let my players continually add to and change the game world when it makes sense. I don't worry overmuch about "spoiling" stuff; the concept starts to lose meaning when they have six characters apiece, in different locations and often working at cross purposes.

I encourage my players to continually author the game world as well. It's good for engagement and it's another way to cut down on questions.

Meta knowledge isn't necessarily seen as a bad thing. I've taken this to extremes lately, with various custom/home brew abilities that outright function at a meta level (such as retroactively declaring a previous action was done, almost a sort of flashback event.)

The players exist outside the fiction, and know more than their characters. But when they assume the role of their characters, I expect them to play true. Most of the questions would occur in the space between the points where we delve into the scene in character.

I don't care about "meta" knowledge. Players can "metagame" all they like so long as they are pursuing the goals of play in good faith.

Man. I'm getting very philosophical here. I hope that made sense. I have more thoughts, but I have to get back to work.

I probably don't fit in all the boxes you think I do, but we do share some similarities.

 

[iserith]

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

I'm not so sure about that. Chiefly because what amounts to "You're intimidated, but you're free to ignore what I just said about you being intimidated..." doesn't make much sense to me as a practice.

Just wondering why this thread is still going on.

I thought we were trying to make it longer than the Paladin is Dead thread.

 

[Hriston]

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?

I don't use a house rule for PvP. It hasn't been a problem in any game I've participated in. If I were DM for a group where it began to cause problems at the table, however, I think [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s rule sounds like a good solution. My understanding is that it doesn't give the players license to ignore PvP actions, but rather lets them narrate the results of actions directed at their character, similar to the way many have said they adjudicate the effects of Charisma checks on PCs.

 

[iserith]

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.

I ask the players to roll only when achieving their immediate goal in the interaction isn't clearly successful (or clearly a failure). The NPC responds accordingly.

As an example, in my recent Sunless Citadel game, the characters were in a pitched battle with goblins pouring out of their gestation chamber. To make matters worse, Mialee, the wizard, and Meepo, their new-found kobold ally (of sorts), broken into a chamber holding a white dragon wyrmling - Meepo's "pet," though the dragon didn't see it that way.

Seeing a battle heading its way and seeking only to escape, the dragon smashed open some other doors nearby and started to make its way toward the dungeon's exit to Meepo's dismay. More goblins started surging in, pushing the PCs back with sheer numbers.

Mialee made a choice to try and convince the dragon to help against its goblin captors. She appealed to the dragon based on her understanding from Meepo of the dragon's role in the kobold clutch - help your kobold allies by helping us slay the goblins, or words to that effect. Only, the dragon didn't see itself as the kobolds' ally, but its captive. I ruled that Mialee's attempt to persuade the wyrmling automatically failed - no roll - then had the dragon correct her as to its relationships the kobolds in no uncertain terms.

So she then appealed to its greed and vengeful nature instead, offering to team up for much goblin death and a large share of the goblins' gold - a much more viable approach when dealing with a chromatic dragon in my view. So faced with the choice of escape or gold and revenge, I felt there was sufficient uncertainty here to ask for a roll. Mialee's player made a Charisma (Persuasion) check, succeeded, and (for a time) had a white dragon wyrmling for an ally which was instrumental in taking down the hobgoblin leader later on.

 

[iserith]

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?

I do not. On a successful check of any kind, the PC achieves the intended goal. On a failed check of any kind, the PC either does not achieve the intended goal or achieves the goal while suffering a setback. All that matters to me is whether the result is equal to or greater than the DC (or not). I don't take into account the actual number rolled otherwise.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't use a house rule for PvP. It hasn't been a problem in any game I've participated in. If I were DM for a group where it began to cause problems at the table, however, I think [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s rule sounds like a good solution. My understanding is that it doesn't give the players license to ignore PvP actions, but rather lets them narrate the results of actions directed at their character, similar to the way many have said they adjudicate the effects of Charisma checks on PCs.

I want asking about PvP. By the rules, NPCs can have classes, and there are plenty of non classed npcs that have access to fear magics.

 

[Ristamar]

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?

It depends on the task. Generally, I don't use a graded scale for failure/success, but there are occasions it may be applicable, and I'll typically spell out those conditions before the roll takes place.

I'm more apt to use multiple checks for long, complex tasks.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

.....

Do other people do this as well?

With social, yes, your rolls are literally how influential you are in what you're doing. The outcome of a 10 is going to be different from the outcome of a 1, a 15, or a 20. While I enjoy RP, I'm okay with saying "I attempt to haggle with the merchant and impress him with my knowledge of arcane lore about this object....*make arcana check*." instead of actually haggling with my players, just too time consuming. It's also better than X successes before Y failures like I use for other challenges in the world to keep the rolling to a minimum.

I'm fairly strict on social, it can very easily consume a LOT of table time for minor interactions RPing every random NPC they decide to talk to and I'm just not interested in that at all.

 

[GMMichael]

Player: "I think he's lying."
DM: "Roll Insight."
Player: "Um...4."
DM: "He rolls Deception 12. So you believe him."
Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?"
DM: "You believe him; his Deception was higher than your Insight."

False dichotomy.

DM: "The guard rolls Intimidate and gets an 18. Yeah, you're intimidated."
Player: "Oh, ok I guess I'll just keep moving then."

False dichotomy,

Player: "I don't think I want to do this quest for only 100 gold."
DM: "The magistrate rolls Persuade and gets...a natural 20!"
Player: "Darn. Looks like I'll take the quest."

and false dichotomy.

Sure, 5e's attack rolls are still hit or miss, black or white, but it seems that gender has found its way into the gray. Maybe your other contests could be a little more gray, too.

 

[MostlyDm]

I ask the players to roll only when achieving their immediate goal in the interaction isn't clearly successful (or clearly a failure). The NPC responds accordingly.

As an example, in my recent Sunless Citadel game, the characters were in a pitched battle with goblins pouring out of their gestation chamber. To make matters worse, Mialee, the wizard, and Meepo, their new-found kobold ally (of sorts), broken into a chamber holding a white dragon wyrmling - Meepo's "pet," though the dragon didn't see it that way.

Seeing a battle heading its way and seeking only to escape, the dragon smashed open some other doors nearby and started to make its way toward the dungeon's exit to Meepo's dismay. More goblins started surging in, pushing the PCs back with sheer numbers.

Mialee made a choice to try and convince the dragon to help against its goblin captors. She appealed to the dragon based on her understanding from Meepo of the dragon's role in the kobold clutch - help your kobold allies by helping us slay the goblins, or words to that effect. Only, the dragon didn't see itself as the kobolds' ally, but its captive. I ruled that Mialee's attempt to persuade the wyrmling automatically failed - no roll - then had the dragon correct her as to its relationships the kobolds in no uncertain terms.

So she then appealed to its greed and vengeful nature instead, offering to team up for much goblin death and a large share of the goblins' gold - a much more viable approach when dealing with a chromatic dragon in my view. So faced with the choice of escape or gold and revenge, I felt there was sufficient uncertainty here to ask for a roll. Mialee's player made a Charisma (Persuasion) check, succeeded, and (for a time) had a white dragon wyrmling for an ally which was instrumental in taking down the hobgoblin leader later on.

Seems reasonable to me. That's not far from how I'd handle it either. When the outcome of the intended action is uncertain, roll.

My main players are also primarily DMs in other games. That may be why they like this idea. So, when they are uncertain about how an NPC's statement will move them, they sometimes ask me for a roll from the NPC. I don't see substantially how this is different than the above example.

I'm not the NPCs and my players aren't the PCs. We just control them as close to our understanding of their personalities as we can.

Uncertainty is inevitable and a big part of the fun. I'd never tell a player how they have to take something; they ultimately get to decide what their character does.