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

[sunshadow21]

It's not any more "work" than any other adjudication. The DM determines success, failure, or uncertainty as with any action that is taken. In the case of an NPC trying to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a player character, there is no uncertainty because the player decides what happens. If anything it's less work since there is no roll at all in my approach - I describe, players respond, and that's it.

It may be less work for you but not more most people. You make describing things completely enough to make that process work sound easy; I assure you it is not. Getting rid of the roll actually makes it harder unless both DM and player are particularly proficient in both listening to and telling oral stories; obviously this isn't a problem for you or your group, but even you have had to allow for a bit of a learning curve with new players. It's not nearly as easy or as common as you seem to believe. The only DM I personally know that I would fully trust to pull that off also happens to be a bard in the Society of Creative Anachronism, and the correlation is not accidental. One or two more can do really good for short bits, but a full campaign with nothing but that would be far too much to be able to do consistently. Few people have both the skill and time devoted to be a truly good oral story teller; even throughout history, when that skill was far more common, it was still rare enough that even decent orators were often community leaders and/or local celebrities. I could learn it, as could most, but, like myself, most find that that time is spent just as productively on other aspects of the campaign that more players truly care about. Most players don't actually care if you tell them "You're intimidated" or if you take a full minute to describe in massive detail why the PC should be quaking in their boots, and many actually prefer the former because it keeps the game moving along past the parts that many players find uninteresting. It also means that they are more likely to pay attention when the DM actually goes into full details for the big encounters rather than simply ignoring most of the details because it seems like just another encounter.

 

[iserith]

That's certainly one way of looking at it, but it is definitely not how I run games. NPCs can and will be agents of change just as often as the PCs will be, and plots can and will change over time in the game regardless of whether or not the PCs choose to participate in them or even attempt to learn about them or not. Different NPCs will have different levels of impact just like players that show up weekly will have a greater impact than those that show up monthly. Anybody who sits down at my game expecting this perfectly neutral arbitrater who relies mostly on dice to respond to player actions is going to be severely disappointed. I rely on the dice at exactly the same level as the players, no more and no less. If my players want to be able to effect NPCs with dice rolls, it can be used against them in similar circumstances; if they want to stick to strictly roleplay, pulling out dice only for combat or really tough situations, than the NPCs will as well. I do try to balance this out by providing documents describing the key parts of the world and campaign as far as they have been developed to this point, and I constantly am updating those documents with new informaton as the campaign develops, but if a player isn't willing to spend a half hour out of game to read them, I can't do much to help them. While there are DMs out there that can do a really good job of descriptions while also managing the other parts of the game, I am not one of them, and I have seen out of the more than a dozen DMs I've played under maybe 2 or 3 that I would consider truly proficient at it.

I do not personally enjoy playing in, nor will I ever run, a campaign where the DM is simply a narrator who uses dice to resolve uncertainty. I don't want a world or NPCs that simply respond to my actions; I want a world and NPCs that give me something to respond to as much as I give them stuff to respond to. It's very much a two way street. I have never liked the idea that somehow NPCs and PCs are fundamentally different, not in video games and not at the table. The DM may not have the same role as the players, but that doesn't make the DM's role any less active on the roleplay side. Just because an NPC will only show up for that scene, doesn't mean that I put any less effort into running that NPC as true as possible to the paragraph of information I've worked up for them than the players put into their characters.

I don't know [MENTION=6801558]robus[/MENTION], but a charitable reading of his or her posts in this thread lead me to believe he or she would agree that NPCs are also movers and shakers in the game world, not just game elements that behave in a reactive manner. I doubt anyone would hold that position, so it's a wonder you attribute it to robus. I also doubt robus would hold a position that the DM not put any effort into playing the NPC in an evocative and interesting manner.

Uncertainty is resolved with mechanics and how those are applied can vary between NPCs and PCs. After all, we aren't affecting PCs or NPCs with "die rolls" as you say - they aren't powers to be activated. Before those die rolls comes a fictional action - hopefully expressed, but it seems in some games, it appears to be merely implied - and it's that fictional action that matters. The dice are just tools that sometimes help determine how that fictional action turns out. If the DM decides that no ability checks will ever be used to determine whether a character is deceived, intimidated, or persuaded by an NPC, that's perfectly in keeping with the rules. The DM's just saying there is no uncertainty.

 

[sunshadow21]

Uncertainty is resolved with mechanics and how those are applied can vary between NPCs and PCs. After all, we aren't affecting PCs or NPCs with "die rolls" as you say - they aren't powers to be activated. Before those die rolls comes a fictional action - hopefully expressed, but it seems in some games, it appears to be merely implied - and it's that fictional action that matters. The dice are just tools that sometimes help determine how that fictional action turns out. If the DM decides that no ability checks will ever be used to determine whether a character is deceived, intimidated, or persuaded by an NPC, that's perfectly in keeping with the rules. The DM's just saying there is no uncertainty.

I'm glad that works for your games, but it is definitely not how I approach the game, whether it be as DM or player. I have a strong suspicion I would last all of five minutes in your game if I even made it to the actual game session. It's perfectly within the rules, but your takes on how uncertainty works and how to resolve it are quite frankly a bit alien to me, and will remain so no matter how many times you try to explain it.

 

[iserith]

It may be less work for you but not more most people. You make describing things completely enough to make that process work sound easy; I assure you it is not. Getting rid of the roll actually makes it harder unless both DM and player are particularly proficient in both listening to and telling oral stories; obviously this isn't a problem for you or your group, but even you have had to allow for a bit of a learning curve with new players. It's not nearly as easy or as common as you seem to believe. The only DM I personally know that I would fully trust to pull that off also happens to be a bard in the Society of Creative Anachronism, and the correlation is not accidental. One or two more can do really good for short bits, but a full campaign with nothing but that would be far too much to be able to do consistently. Few people have both the skill and time devoted to be a truly good oral story teller; even throughout history, when that skill was far more common, it was still rare enough that even decent orators were often community leaders and/or local celebrities. I could learn it, as could most, but, like myself, most find that that time is spent just as productively on other aspects of the campaign that more players truly care about. Most players don't actually care if you tell them "You're intimidated" or if you take a full minute to describe in massive detail why the PC should be quaking in their boots, and many actually prefer the former because it keeps the game moving along past the parts that many players find uninteresting. It also means that they are more likely to pay attention when the DM actually goes into full details for the big encounters rather than simply ignoring most of the details because it seems like just another encounter.

I'm not sure I understand your position here. Is it "Storytelling takes time to learn, therefore I'm not going to try to learn it?"

And if players are ignoring or are uninterested in my descriptions, that would tell me it's time to work on improving that particular skill. Describing the environment is fully one-third of the basic conversation of the game, after all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I don't understand the full context of your campaign, but if it's the warlock's patron that's scared, then I don't see why it need affect the warlock at all. If I were you and thought this was important enough to spend time on, I'd try to figure out a way to demonstrate the patron's fear in some fashion that doesn't tell the player how his or her character feels.

except you can't... A it isn't the patron, it is litterlly just the power... warlocks are gifted power once un like divine casters, no need to keep on good terms...

Unless I miss my guess You would just skip the clue... I don't want to. SO lets see if anyone between now and tomorrow night can give me a way to get across that something inside of my PC is doing something without him being able to feel it...

out of curiosity if I said someone felt cold, or hot is that off limits too in your mind?

 

[iserith]

I'm glad that works for your games, but it is definitely not how I approach the game, whether it be as DM or player. I have a strong suspicion I would last all of five minutes in your game if I even made it to the actual game session. It's perfectly within the rules, but your takes on how uncertainty works and how to resolve it are quite frankly a bit alien to me, and will remain so no matter how many times you try to explain it.

What's "alien" about it?

 

[iserith]

out of curiosity if I said someone felt cold, or hot is that off limits too in your mind?

I would prefer to describe the environment without specific reference to how a character feels. That's my goal anyway. I'm sure I make a mistake from time to time.

 

[sunshadow21]

What's "alien" about it?

It's clearly as alien to me as my approach is very clearly alien to you. I am reaching the point where talking to you is basically like talking to a brick wall; nothing I say gets through, and everything is questioned through the lens of "I can do it, why can't he?" This does not make your approach or your contributions wrong, but after multiple pages of seeing you repeat the exact same statements and being completely tone deaf to any other points of view, no matter who they come from or how they are phrased, it's getting a little tiring. It was interesting at first, but now it's a broken record that simply won't shut up. If you can come up with any new points, I will gladly discuss them, but you've beaten the points of superiority of storytelling over dice rolling, uncertainty and player agency into the ground as far as how you see them, and apparently no one in all of these pages has been able to make you budge even an inch. I would consider those discussions done.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's clearly as alien to me as my approach is very clearly alien to you. I am reaching the point where talking to you is basically like talking to a brick wall; nothing I say gets through, and everything is questioned through the lens of "I can do it, why can't he?" This does not make your approach or your contributions wrong, but after multiple pages of seeing you repeat the exact same statements and being completely tone deaf to any other points of view, no matter who they come from or how they are phrased, it's getting a little tiring. It was interesting at first, but now it's a broken record that simply won't shut up. If you can come up with any new points, I will gladly discuss them, but you've beaten the points of superiority of storytelling over dice rolling, uncertainty and player agency into the ground as far as how you see them, and apparently no one in all of these pages has been able to make you budge even an inch. I would consider those discussions done.

the funny part is that I was one of 4 or 5 at the beginning, almost everyone gave up (I tried but I;m too stuburn) yet he can't see that in 60 pages there are ALOT of people that can't get his way...

 

[iserith]

It's clearly as alien to me as my approach is very clearly alien to you.

Your way isn't alien to me. I used to play that way, so I understand it fine. I just don't do it anymore. What's alien about my approach to you?

but you've beaten the points of superiority of storytelling over dice rolling,

To be clear, I don't see these two things are comparable in this way. The dice resolve uncertainty that arises during storytelling. Therefore, one cannot be superior to the other unless I misread your intent here.