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

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

yes and in the real world I would like examples of chooseing to be intimidated or not... not choices of not doing what the intimidator wants, but choices to turn off the fear center of your brain....

 

[Ovinomancer]

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 asked him a similar question, yes. I asked you the same question because you were arguing a similar point. I didn't expect to hear you opine on what Iserth's opinion was, I wanted to hear yours.

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.

In IRL, I've never once been under the effects of a mind control spell. They don't exist. So I'm not following your train of logic, there. When someone IRL lies to me and I don't notice, I think they've told me the truth. IGL (In Game Life), when someone lies convincingly to a character, should not that character also think they've been told the truth? Or is it only when magic or not-magic but different from social skills happens that such things can occur.

In short, you're actually fine dictating to a player what/how their character feels or thinks. Your line is 'magic' or 'ability' where ability is a vague grouping of possible mechanics you, at that moment, think should work. But you don't have an issue with telling players how their character thinks. You just have that issue when it comes to social skills. Social skills are just another mechanic in the game, like magic or 'abilities'. As I said above, we agree that it's okay to tell players what their characters think, we just have a different opinion of how much it takes to do that.

 

[robus]

Something's been nagging me throughout this epic debate.

It seems to me that there's been a bunch of argument about how "your character is intimidated" should be interpreted.

Iserith and Hriston (and others) are interpreting that as "the intimidation has affected my character's state of mind. My character is intimidated." Thus perceiving that agency has been taken away from the player.

Ovinomancer, GMforPowergamers (and others) are, perhaps, interpreting it as "my character has witnessed a powerful display of intimidation. How shall I respond?" (and thus not actually mentally intimidated, but very much aware that an attempt at intimidation is being made)

Is that a fair interpretation of the intimidation debate?

 

[Tony Vargas]

interpreting that as "the intimidation has affected my character's state of mind. My character is intimidated." Thus perceiving that agency has been taken away from the player.

vs

perhaps, interpreting it as "my character has witnessed a powerful display of intimidation. How shall I respond?" (and thus not actually mentally intimidated, but very much aware that an attempt at intimidation is being made)

Is that a fair interpretation of the intimidation debate?

I think that's a big part of it, viewed from one angle. Another angle might be related to immersion. Some might say that if the DM wants a PC to be intimidated, he should telegraph the danger represented by the intimidating individual, so the player appropriately fears for his character (with whom he identifies enough that he reacts as an intimidated character would).

Intimidation is more than just being scary, it's being scary, but also not implacable, with a clear course of action that will remove the implied threat. It means being credible on both sides of that equation, that you /are/ dangerous, that you /will/ do something horrible, but that you'll refrain if the victim knuckles under. Just being scary is just being scary, like a dragon fear aura, for instance - it's /really/ scary, but characters affected by it don't start doing what the dragon tells them.


The angle I like to look at it from is more a matter of resolution. An NPC tries to intimidate a PC. How do you resolve that? Does the DM just tell the PC how he reacts? (resolution by DM fiat) Does he just describe that the NPC is intimidating and let the player declare his next action? (player fiat) Do the DM & player 'RP' the intimidation? (Player as resolution system) Or, do they use a sub-system provided by the game? (Like a check or opposed check) In 5e, the official resolution system is the player declaring an action and the DM narrating the result, with checks optional - but an NPC intimidating a PC isn't a player action, is it? ....

 

[robus]

The angle I like to look at it from is more a matter of resolution. An NPC tries to intimidate a PC. How do you resolve that?

That's an excellent way of putting it. Would that we'd have seen your post a long time ago

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think that's a big part of it, viewed from one angle. Another angle might be related to immersion. Some might say that if the DM wants a PC to be intimidated, he should telegraph the danger represented by the intimidating individual, so the player appropriately fears for his character (with whom he identifies enough that he reacts as an intimidated character would).

Intimidation is more than just being scary, it's being scary, but also not implacable, with a clear course of action that will remove the implied threat. It means being credible on both sides of that equation, that you /are/ dangerous, that you /will/ do something horrible, but that you'll refrain if the victim knuckles under. Just being scary is just being scary, like a dragon fear aura, for instance - it's /really/ scary, but characters affected by it don't start doing what the dragon tells them.


The angle I like to look at it from is more a matter of resolution. An NPC tries to intimidate a PC. How do you resolve that? Does the DM just tell the PC how he reacts? (resolution by DM fiat) Does he just describe that the NPC is intimidating and let the player declare his next action? (player fiat) Do the DM & player 'RP' the intimidation? (Player as resolution system) Or, do they use a sub-system provided by the game? (Like a check or opposed check) In 5e, the official resolution system is the player declaring an action and the DM narrating the result, with checks optional - but an NPC intimidating a PC isn't a player action, is it? ....

Unless you consider the DM to also be a player.

Further, there's a middle ground in there where the resolution mechanic (social skill contested roll) is used to set the baseline for the player response. "Jobob (a PC) is intimidated by the orc's feral roar, what do you do?" That uses the mechanic to set the baseline for the character. They can say, "I hate being scared, I punch him," or, "Yikes, I give the orc a wide berth," or, "I ask how I can resolve this issue peacefully (can I make a persuasion check to defuse the situation?)" So I use the mechanic to establish the baseline, a touch of DM fiat to state the character's state of mind, and a bunch of player fiat to actually tell me what they do with that baseline.

Or, and relatively frequently, I'll just roleplay because I have some good players. I have one, though, that will only listen to the dice. He makes up in other ways, otherwise that would be very annoying.

 

[robus]

Unless you consider the DM to also be a player.

This might be the crux of it.

I don't consider the DM to be a player. The DM does not get XP, the DM does not level up. The DM doesn't win. The DM doesn't lose.

The DM is the "game-world runner", nothing happens in the game-world unless the DM makes it happen. The dice are there to assist the DM in running the game-world and responding fairly to player actions. The players are the agents of change in the game world - which reacts to their actions (through the DM).

 

[iserith]

I don't consider the DM to be a player. The DM does not get XP, the DM does not level up. The DM doesn't win. The DM doesn't lose.

The DM is the "game-world runner", nothing happens in the game-world unless the DM makes it happen. The dice are there to assist the DM in running the game-world and responding fairly to player actions. The players are the agents of change in the game world - which reacts to their actions (through the DM).

The "How to Play" section (the "official resolution system" to which Tony Vargas was referring, I believe) is pretty clear about the particular roles being discussed as it relates to resolving things in my view. It makes a distinction between players (the people controlling the characters) and the DM (the person running the game).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Something's been nagging me throughout this epic debate.

It seems to me that there's been a bunch of argument about how "your character is intimidated" should be interpreted.

Iserith and Hriston (and others) are interpreting that as "the intimidation has affected my character's state of mind. My character is intimidated." Thus perceiving that agency has been taken away from the player.

Ovinomancer, GMforPowergamers (and others) are, perhaps, interpreting it as "my character has witnessed a powerful display of intimidation. How shall I respond?" (and thus not actually mentally intimidated, but very much aware that an attempt at intimidation is being made)

Is that a fair interpretation of the intimidation debate?

not exactly... at least for me...


the human body has a self preservation mechanic that is fight or flight. that system is automatic and reflexsive. it serves a good purpose (it's your bodies way of warning you about bad situations).

all of that is out of game real world thoughts... when my anxiety goes up that's something inside me reading 'hey now is a point to be careful'

it is possible through force of will, through trickery and through just plain skill induce this effect in a person.

again still out of game real world so far.


I see the intimidate skill in game as the ability to use that same reaction in game.


now just because your fear response goes off isn't a magic compulsion.


so again unless you are roleplaying data turning off your emotions and going on pure logic, you have o control over being intimidated... but also have 100% free control to think and say anything...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I wonder if you have a problem with something from tomorrows game... when they finish the hobgoblin quest they plan to go to the dark citadel... a dungeon with a dark past. One PC is a warlock, I prepared special flavor text for him about it giving him the heebee jeebies and it feeling like an ice ball formed in his belly...

now that is also a clue to what is going on in the game... do you think telling him that is 'robbing his agency'?