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

[MostlyDm]

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.

This is not at all consistent with my play experience, both as a DM and a player. I'm very open to multiple outcomes of social interactions(or any interaction.). Failure is fun. Being pushed outside my comfort zone is fun. Sometimes I'm on the fence about a particular course of action and I'm happy to use rolls to inform my decision.

I wonder if it comes from primarily DMing; as I said a post ago, my core play group is made up entirely of dedicated DMs with 10-20 years experience behind the screen. DMs get used to deciding character actions based on the sum of several factors, including character personality, goals, the persuasive angle that's being used on them... And rolls.

That could be a factor. I don't know. But it's certainly not a lack of investment. We've been playing this campaign once a week for over 3 years, and we're very invested in the game and the fate of the world and its inhabitants

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

I disagree, I do this a lot, especially in big situations where my character is very divided, sometimes I'll in-and-out of game flip a coin. It's sort of like making a will save against your own temptation. Do you go down the route that smells like food when you're really hungry, or do you know that since you're in a dungeon filled with 7-deadly-sins themed monsters, you'll probably be walking right into the jaws of Gluttony?

Sometimes it's a lot of fun to decide against the rational, well-thought out option and just go with your gut (in this case represented by the die roll). Choosing to give in to temptation always feels forced, just as much as always making well-thought-out rational decisions does. People (and presumably fantasy humans) aren't always rational actors.

 

[Hriston]

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...

I don't think that's what it comes down to. IMO, what it comes down to is whether you think playing an RPG depends on interacting with the game-world through a PC that you control from the inside, or you think it's about watching the story of the PC unfold as an interested observer and co-author. The latter approach is rather too "simulationist" for my particular tastes when it comes to playing an RPG, but I certainly hope you don't think I'm looking down on you or anyone in this thread who has a different opinion. We all have our own tastes and are entitled to express our own opinions about them without anyone saying their way is better than someone else's. Personally, I like wargames and other types of simulation. I enjoy the many features D&D has in common with this type of game, but I also believe what makes an RPG more than a wargame is that a space has been made for the player to assume the role of a participant in the action in the form of the PC, and that the interior life of the PC belongs to the player alone.

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.

In my view, the action resolution system isn't an aid to roleplay. It's a means for resolving the actions the players have decided on for their PCs through roleplay. If I roleplay a decision for my NPC to shoot an arrow at your PC, we resolve that action with an attack roll to simulate the chance the arrow hits. This roll accounts for your PC's ability to duck at the last minute represented by your PC's AC. On the other hand, if I roleplay a decision for my NPC to try to talk your PC into going on a quest, we can't resolve that action with an ability check, IMO, because the resolution depends on your PC's decision to go on the quest or not. It can only be resolved with more roleplaying, and that roleplaying needs to come from the player. Now, of course, you could roll to see if the NPC's Charisma check persuades your PC, but again to me this is too much like a wargame, where you're watching the action from the sideline and not as a full participant on the battlefield. Instead of the player roleplaying the PC's response, the dice are used to run a numerical simulation of a conversation and the action is resolved accordingly.

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.

To me, a Charisma (Intimidation) check is set up to see whether an attempt to influence someone using intimidation as a tactic is successful or not. When describing the environment for the players, however, it would be fine in my games for the DM to describe just how intimidating an NPC is being. If the best way for you to communicate how intimidating an NPC is to your players is on a numerical scale, of course you could roll to generate that number, and also use it to inform your roleplay as DM. You could also simply assign a number that best fits your idea of how intimidating the NPC is.

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

I'm not saying you were playing your character wrong. If it's what your character would have done anyway, then that's the same way I would do it. I only find it somewhat concerning that you'd need to make an argument to retain control of your character's feelings and motivations.

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.

The difference is between description of the environment ("The Orc is very intimidating."), and action resolution ("The Orc intimidates you into agreeing to do X.")

"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 think you're misunderstanding me here. My comment about the Orc "putting on a good show" was meant to be an acknowledgment from the player that the DM had indeed described the Orc as being very intimidating, but that the player had decided that his PC's resolve hadn't been softened, which is a roleplaying choice.

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

Because the character's player is a player one week and a DM the next right? I'm not sure how that's different from the idea of a DM run PC.

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

The players and the DM have different functions within the group due to different levels of meta-game knowledge. I can see how a group where DMing duties rotate from week to week might develop a more wargamey style because of meta-game knowledge being more generally shared.

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

The DM's job isn't to persuade the players. The DM should be describing what the NPC says and how s/he says it.

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.

I don't think acting ability need have anything to do with it. Of course you're going to get different results from DM to DM. What's wrong with that? The dice can give you wildly different results too, which is kind of the point, right?

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

The character is the player's entry point into the world.

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

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be insulting. Those are just the words I'd use for the things you're describing. Getting hit with an attack or failing a saving throw aren't choices your character is making. Acting out a response to those events isn't roleplaying unless that response involves making meaningful choices. Maybe we have different ideas of what roleplaying is, so to be clear the distinction I would make is that having your character act out some event that was determined by the dice is not roleplay. Roleplay, IMO, is when you have your character take some kind of action that you have chosen. Sometimes the results of those actions need to be determined by the dice.

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

The three skills we're discussing are not mind control effects. They relie on the voluntary acquiescence of the target to be effective. When you intimidate me, you don't take away my ability to make my own choices. You just make me think it's in my own interests to go along with you. There's a choice involved for the character, so there should be a choice for the player. At least that's how I see it.

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

I'm just not interested in running a simulation of a conversation in an RPG, and believe me, I do use social skill checks, just not as a substitute for roleplay.

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 it effects the choices you have, the DM should describe those aspects of any NPCs you deal with. This seems like a false dichotomy.

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

If you're the DM, you can describe the Orc as intimidating as you want him to be. However, I'm not sure how this information affects the player's decision whether to have his or her character go along with what the Orc wants.

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

Right, because deciding what your character does is the basis of an RPG. Rolling comes in when it's uncertain whether the action will have the desired outcome.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Then your question confuses me since I don't recall having read that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] allows players to ignore the effects of the Fear spell. As for me, Fear and Intimidating Presence are explicit exceptions to the general rule that players are in control of their characters. Charisma checks are not because the effect of a successful check is that the subject voluntarily complies with you. There is nothing involuntary about it.

 

[Hriston]

This is not at all consistent with my play experience, both as a DM and a player. I'm very open to multiple outcomes of social interactions(or any interaction.). Failure is fun. Being pushed outside my comfort zone is fun. Sometimes I'm on the fence about a particular course of action and I'm happy to use rolls to inform my decision.

I wonder if it comes from primarily DMing; as I said a post ago, my core play group is made up entirely of dedicated DMs with 10-20 years experience behind the screen. DMs get used to deciding character actions based on the sum of several factors, including character personality, goals, the persuasive angle that's being used on them... And rolls.

That could be a factor. I don't know. But it's certainly not a lack of investment. We've been playing this campaign once a week for over 3 years, and we're very invested in the game and the fate of the world and its inhabitants

Right, and that sounds like fun. I like wargames and simulation. It sounds like you and [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] have an all DM play group in common, which may be a factor in gravitating towards this style of play. But my point is that rolling dice to determine how a character acts, to my mind, shows a lack of player investment in the character. Maybe I didn't express that clearly.

 

[Hriston]

I disagree, I do this a lot, especially in big situations where my character is very divided, sometimes I'll in-and-out of game flip a coin. It's sort of like making a will save against your own temptation. Do you go down the route that smells like food when you're really hungry, or do you know that since you're in a dungeon filled with 7-deadly-sins themed monsters, you'll probably be walking right into the jaws of Gluttony?

Sometimes it's a lot of fun to decide against the rational, well-thought out option and just go with your gut (in this case represented by the die roll). Choosing to give in to temptation always feels forced, just as much as always making well-thought-out rational decisions does. People (and presumably fantasy humans) aren't always rational actors.

When you're conflicted about which way to go, presumably your character is also conflicted. If your character flips a coin, then you have roleplayed the decision to flip a coin. If your character decides to abide by the result of the coin toss, then you have roleplayed that decision for your character as well. That's not what I was talking about.

What I was talking about is if you flip a coin to decide what your character does, but your character isn't flipping a coin. If you then let the coin toss dictate what your character does, you haven't roleplayed that decision. You let the coin do the roleplaying for you. There's nothing wrong with that, but it removes the player from the subjective viewpoint of the character.

 

[Imaculata]

I have a player in my group who sometimes does the latter. He sometimes makes a roll to see if his character is tempted to do something that may end badly. I don't mind, but it basically leaves a role playing decision up to chance.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Then your question confuses me since I don't recall having read that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] allows players to ignore the effects of the Fear spell.

I wasn't asking what Iserth thought, I was asking you what you thought.

As for me, Fear and Intimidating Presence are explicit exceptions to the general rule that players are in control of their characters. Charisma checks are not because the effect of a successful check is that the subject voluntarily complies with you. There is nothing involuntary about it.

I don't recall the words voluntary or involuntary anywhere in the rules. As far as I see, we've already agreed that the general rule of self-direction for PCs can be excepted, now we're just haggling over price. You say, "Sorry, I'm not cheap enough to be bought for social skills" and other are. We're using exactly the same justifications, we just differ on the price point.

 

[Hriston]

I wasn't asking what Iserth thought, I was asking you what you thought.

Right, but you asserted in your question that he thought something that, as far as I know, he only thinks with regard to PvP, which is where the confusion comes from.

I don't recall the words voluntary or involuntary anywhere in the rules. As far as I see, we've already agreed that the general rule of self-direction for PCs can be excepted, now we're just haggling over price. You say, "Sorry, I'm not cheap enough to be bought for social skills" and other are. We're using exactly the same justifications, we just differ on the price point.

Just think about it for a moment. IRL, when someone persuades you to do something, you then agree with them that it's a good idea and willingly go through with the action. When someone has cast a mind control spell on you, on the other hand, you are under that person's power.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't think that's what it comes down to. IMO, what it comes down to is whether you think playing an RPG depends on interacting with the game-world through a PC that you control from the inside, or you think it's about watching the story of the PC unfold as an interested observer and co-author.

OK, I think that choice A is closer to my games (although to be fair it's a little of both maybe 70% A and 30%B)

The latter approach is rather too "simulationist" for my particular tastes when it comes to playing an RPG, but I certainly hope you don't think I'm looking down on you or anyone in this thread who has a different opinion.

I've now been told I am all three... I am often called 'gamest' because I put fun at the table first...sometimes I get call 'narativist' but this is the first time I've been called simulationist....

Personally, I like wargames and other types of simulation.

I have a love/hate relationship with wargames... it feels weird to me. I got into a big fight with one of my older players when he tried to run a campaign of a wargame (10 players in a tournny style) because the first time I played him I had all my minis hidden out of his mini's line of sight, but he still just moved into line of sight...his argument was I was to "RPG"minded he knew everything out of game...

I enjoy the many features D&D has in common with this type of game, but I also believe what makes an RPG more than a wargame is that a space has been made for the player to assume the role of a participant in the action in the form of the PC, and that the interior life of the PC belongs to the player alone.

That is what I like most about RPGs...

In my view, the action resolution system isn't an aid to roleplay.

I very much disagree

It's a means for resolving the actions the players have decided on for their PCs through roleplay.

yes that is true... but it's not roleplaying at all if you have your Int 8 wis 9 character always come up with brilliant plans. It's not roleplaying to talk about how your str 8 character carries a 150lb bundle of straw/hey. It's also not roleplaying to have your cha 8 half orc with a barbarian like background to charm everyone you meet just because you can out talk the DM... or most important to this discussion, I don't think it's role playing to just decide that your character is in no way motivated or moved by in game stimiuli...

If I roleplay a decision for my NPC to shoot an arrow at your PC, we resolve that action with an attack roll to simulate the chance the arrow hits. This roll accounts for your PC's ability to duck at the last minute represented by your PC's AC.

see in game and out of game is different here, I don't have to hit you with an arrow, my character hits your character with an arrow...

On the other hand, if I roleplay a decision for my NPC to try to talk your PC into going on a quest, we can't resolve that action with an ability check, IMO, because the resolution depends on your PC's decision to go on the quest or not. It can only be resolved with more roleplaying, and that roleplaying needs to come from the player. Now, of course, you could roll to see if the NPC's Charisma check persuades your PC, but again to me this is too much like a wargame, where you're watching the action from the sideline and not as a full participant on the battlefield. Instead of the player roleplaying the PC's response, the dice are used to run a numerical simulation of a conversation and the action is resolved accordingly.

well I've never seen that exact scenero (because normally when 1 PC wont join the quest of the game our answer is "Ok, do you not want to play tonight?" or "OK, now draw up a different character...one that WILL play tonight") it really is the same as the arrow above... I don't have to convince my NPC does... so we need to test HOW WELL he does at convincing...

To me, a Charisma (Intimidation) check is set up to see whether an attempt to influence someone using intimidation as a tactic is successful or not. When describing the environment for the players, however, it would be fine in my games for the DM to describe just how intimidating an NPC is being. If the best way for you to communicate how intimidating an NPC is to your players is on a numerical scale, of course you could roll to generate that number, and also use it to inform your roleplay as DM. You could also simply assign a number that best fits your idea of how intimidating the NPC is.

I'm lost here... are you saying now you have no issue with rolling intimidate?

I'm not saying you were playing your character wrong. If it's what your character would have done anyway, then that's the same way I would do it. I only find it somewhat concerning that you'd need to make an argument to retain control of your character's feelings and motivations.

so in this scenero who has to make an argument?

The difference is between description of the environment ("The Orc is very intimidating."), and action resolution ("The Orc intimidates you into agreeing to do X.")

strawman... no one ever said "Into agreeing to do X" find me any quote of that... Intimadation is how scary you are. It is a trait in the world it is still up to the PC how he reacts... YOU and other posters who don't like it keep pretending I take away control...no matter how many times I explain it.

Try this before you or anyone else responds think about this... if there is some way that you can interpret what I am saying into 'takeing away player free choice' you are reading what I am saying wrong.

I think you're misunderstanding me here. My comment about the Orc "putting on a good show" was meant to be an acknowledgment from the player that the DM had indeed described the Orc as being very intimidating, but that the player had decided that his PC's resolve hadn't been softened, which is a roleplaying choice.

so your orc intimidated him but the PC decided that he wasn't backing down just because he was intimidated...sounds like one of my games so far...

Because the character's player is a player one week and a DM the next right? I'm not sure how that's different from the idea of a DM run PC.

3 scenerios... 1) the round robin DM. 2) the character tree. 3) the player that can't make every game. all three of these are common enough that I can't remember a full 2 year peirode since 95 that one or more wasn't true of my games... so this Tuesday Magni one eye the tough as nails dwarf (Barbarian/fighter multi class) is an NPC, but next week he is a PC.

The players and the DM have different functions within the group due to different levels of meta-game knowledge. I can see how a group where DMing duties rotate from week to week might develop a more wargamey style because of meta-game knowledge being more generally shared.

I hate that wargamey and videogamey are ways we try to pigon hole each other... even more so when people do so without understanding the other's preffrences....

The DM's job isn't to persuade the players. The DM should be describing what the NPC says and how s/he says it.

yes, and if there is a question that needs answering "Hey how X is that character" then there are systems in place to show it...

I don't think acting ability need have anything to do with it. Of course you're going to get different results from DM to DM. What's wrong with that? The dice can give you wildly different results too, which is kind of the point, right?

yes and no. the same problem as I pointed out back on pg 1 or 2 when I said we had players who wanted to play faces and bard ect, but suck at talking things out, and we had very persuasive people playing low cha characters...

Gee Randy and Dave put there 7 and 8 into cha, no ranks in any social skills(this was 3.0 and 3.5) but not only are really good oraiters but in the case of randy can wrap the DM around his finger with ease... Ross on the other hand is shy and studders and isn't very good at doing so... but Ross is a Cha 17 assimar sorcerer/rogue and Dave is a cha 9 half orc barbarian, and randy is a CHa 8 half oger fighter/mage

I was a PC in the game above and watched as every NPC talked to Randy, some to Dave, and no matter how awesome ross's character should have been, he wasn't because the DM didn't understand at the time what was happeneing (and to this day that DM feels bad about letting randy run over the game the way he did)

The character is the player's entry point into the world.

I agree...

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be insulting. Those are just the words I'd use for the things you're describing. Getting hit with an attack or failing a saving throw aren't choices your character is making.

yes the invulantary 'hey I got hit' and the invulantary 'hey I was intimadated' or 'hey I fell for the bluff' are all the same... it's how you react that matters...

Acting out a response to those events isn't roleplaying unless that response involves making meaningful choices.

how is it possible not to have a meaningful choice?

Maybe we have different ideas of what roleplaying is, so to be clear the distinction I would make is that having your character act out some event that was determined by the dice is not roleplay. Roleplay, IMO, is when you have your character take some kind of action that you have chosen. Sometimes the results of those actions need to be determined by the dice.

but in your mind if the results are deteminded by dice it lost the roleplaying??? I don't understand.

The three skills we're discussing are not mind control effects.

please tell me when anyone said they were...

They relie on the voluntary acquiescence of the target to be effective.

nope... forget the game for a moment and tell me an example of when you in real life have CHOSEN to be intimidated...

When you intimidate me, you don't take away my ability to make my own choices.

that is my argument...

You just make me think it's in my own interests to go along with you.

I'm not sure I would even go that far...

There's a choice involved for the character, so there should be a choice for the player. At least that's how I see it.

once again there is 0 choice in the real world or the game world in being intimidated.

when I was in highschool (and was playing and running 2e) there was a guy named Ron... he was my age but a year lower then me in school (due to my birthday being in sept and his in Jan) he used to intimidate people all the time. He was almost a characticture of a bully. I never did what he said. Because no matter how scared I was (aka intimidated) my stubern steak was more important...

When I took a group of friends out for one of there 21st birthdays we went bar hopping. In one bar a guy that had no neck and looked like he could rip apart my car let alone me was hitting on a friend of mine and she wanted to get away from him. When I told him to leave her alone he and some of his friends all told me they would kick my butt... I had no choice in how my body reacted. I was afraid. I was terrified. To this day (15 years later) one of my friends who was there swears I was so white in the face I looked like I was about to pass out... you know what choice I did have. HOW I REACTED TO BEING INTIMADTAED. I told them they could kick my butt all they wanted, they gave id to get in like everyone else, and camaras were all over the bar, so I hope you can kick the butt of everyone in your jail cell too.

at no point does being intimidated mind control you. it does inform how your characters involonatary system reacts...now you the PC chooise how to roleplay that...

two cities over from me a guy was murdered in a bar last year or the year before... because he walked in wearing something that a local biker gang didn't like. They told him to not wear those colors and this guy told a dozen+ bikers it was a free country... I know this story well because we have discussed it a lot over the last year...witch of my friends would have been 'smart' enough to say "Sorry" and change there close or leave and witch would have been 'DUmb' enough to let that escalate... in that time I don't know of anyone who would say "I would choose not to be intimidated"


It almost sounds like all your PCs are Data from that star trek movie with the borg "I'm feeling anxiety, and fear" followed by "I'll switch off my emotion chip" then he's fine and someone else makes the joke "There are times I envy you data" in your world instead of roleplaying being intimidated PCs all have a magic switch they can choose on or off....

I'm just not interested in running a simulation of a conversation in an RPG, and believe me, I do use social skill checks, just not as a substitute for roleplay.

funny thing, I don't substitute either... the dice enhance not subsititue....

If it effects the choices you have, the DM should describe those aspects of any NPCs you deal with. This seems like a false dichotomy.

ha ha ha... false dichotomy is your whole argument...

If you're the DM, you can describe the Orc as intimidating as you want him to be. However, I'm not sure how this information affects the player's decision whether to have his or her character go along with what the Orc wants.

hey look another strawman... when did I say 'go along with what the orc wants"