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

[Hriston]

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...

I'm glad that would be okay with you. I didn't think that would count, in your book, as responding appropriately to an in-world stimulus. Many people would consider not giving in to threats the same as not being intimidated.

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.

While Magni's being played by the DM, I would consider the DM to have the full range of options the DM has when playing any NPC. If the DM decides that a Charisma check that targets Magni has no chance of success then the DM could disallow it, IMO. If the DM wanted to run Magni as a more conventional NPC, and let Charisma checks have a chance of swaying him, that would be fine too.

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....

I think I've explained how using Charisma checks to determine what a PC does in response to a social interaction makes D&D seem more like a wargame, or a simulation, to me, than like an RPG, but you don't seem to do that. It also wasn't meant to be disparaging of anyone's playstyle. As I said, I enjoy wargames myself, and, as you point out, I didn't know that you do not.

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...

Now, I don't think ability checks are designed to answer those questions, but if you want to randomly determine how scary the Orc is, you could do that. You could also use the Orc's stat block or just make it up,

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)

This is why, in my games, Charisma has a real effect on social interactions. NPCs will comply with requests as the result of a successful check based on the NPC's Starting Attitude and the level of risk involved.

I agree...

I believe you, but you might want to consider that telling a player his or her PC is frightened is a poor substitute for the player genuinely fearing for the safety of his or her PC.

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...

I don't think they're the same. The result of getting hit is for the most part out of your control. You take damage, or maybe, if you have an ability to use your reaction to change that, you can, but that's an exception. The way you run Intimidation and Deception, what's the result of being intimidated or deceived? You have said you leave that up to the player. That's not the same at all.

how is it possible not to have a meaningful choice?

"I got hit, so I cry like a baby at the pain as the arrow strikes me in the leg," is not a meaningful choice, although it might be entertaining for the group, because it doesn't affect the course of the narrative.

"I got hit, so I cast Shield to deflect the arrow," is meaningful, because it changes the outcome in exchange for expending resources.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm glad that would be okay with you. I didn't think that would count, in your book, as responding appropriately to an in-world stimulus. Many people would consider not giving in to threats the same as not being intimidated.

saying that I intimidated you is not the same as saying you have to do what I say... some people you don't want intimidated... because they pull guns and shoot you... fight or flight is very tricky that way

I think I've explained how using Charisma checks to determine what a PC does in response to a social interaction makes D&D seem more like a wargame, or a simulation, to me, than like an RPG, but you don't seem to do that. It also wasn't meant to be disparaging of anyone's playstyle. As I said, I enjoy wargames myself, and, as you point out, I didn't know that you do not.

I disagree by using the ingame narrative it's LESS a wargame and more roleplaying...

Now, I don't think ability checks are designed to answer those questions, but if you want to randomly determine how scary the Orc is, you could do that. You could also use the Orc's stat block or just make it up,

I disagree again... the whole point of an intimidate check is the answer "How intimidating is the character"

This is why, in my games, Charisma has a real effect on social interactions. NPCs will comply with requests as the result of a successful check based on the NPC's Starting Attitude and the level of risk involved.

except others in this thread have said they don't use the stats because you have to 'learn to roleplay'

I believe you, but you might want to consider that telling a player his or her PC is frightened is a poor substitute for the player genuinely fearing for the safety of his or her PC.

I'm in no mood to play word games with my PCs trying to invoc an out of game response everytime I want an in game one...

I don't think they're the same. The result of getting hit is for the most part out of your control.

and as I said above... unless your data turing off your emotions... same for intimidation...

You take damage, or maybe, if you have an ability to use your reaction to change that, you can, but that's an exception. The way you run Intimidation and Deception, what's the result of being intimidated or deceived? You have said you leave that up to the player. That's not the same at all.

the result of getting hit is you take damage "how does your character react"
the result of getting a social fail is you are intimidated "how does your character react"
seems the same to me

"I got hit, so I cry like a baby at the pain as the arrow strikes me in the leg," is not a meaningful choice, although it might be entertaining for the group, because it doesn't affect the course of the narrative.

I got hit, so I fall back
I got hit so I hit the guy that hurt me
I got hit but I ignore it to follow the plan to focus fire

all of those effect the narrative...

"I got hit, so I cast Shield to deflect the arrow," is meaningful, because it changes the outcome in exchange for expending resources.

except you aren't reacting to getting hit your negating the hit

 

[Hriston]

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

No. Maybe I didn't express that clearly. What I said was if characters are taking actions that are determined by the dice then that isn't roleplay. I'm not saying you do this. The proper role for the dice is to resolve the result of an action when the result is uncertain, not to determine those actions in the first place.

please tell me when anyone said they were...

Several people on this thread have made the argument that a Charisma check is no different than a Fear spell and that allowing one to work on PCs but not allowing the other is arbitrary.

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

First realize we have different definitions of what it means to be intimidated. In my view, if you attempt to intimidate someone, and they don't give in to your intimidation, then you have failed to intimidate them, which means that you must have failed your skill check.

Giving your lunch money to someone who has bullied you is a choice. Giving information to an interrogator is a choice. Meeting the demands of a dangerous terrorist is a choice. These are the results of successful intimidation. If you don't get results it doesn't matter how scary you are.

 

[Hriston]

that is my argument...

Then we agree that giving in to intimidation (i.e. letting yourself be intimidated) is a choice.

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

You're making a distinction here between an attempt to intimidate (which I would represent with a die roll), and the success or failure of that attempt (whether the roll hits the DC or not). To me, this is like an attack roll only resolving how well an attack is aimed but not whether it hits.

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

This depends on how you define intimidated. I'm willing to concede that sometimes people have a hard time controlling their feelings, but I disagree that determining that is what an ability check is for. I rather think it's about determining whether the creature making the check achieves its goal or not. An attempt to intimidate implies a motive other than causing a fear response.

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...

See, I would say that you didn't let yourself be intimidated by him. If I was to represent your interaction with a Charisma (Intimidation) check, I would say he failed because he was unable to achieve his goal in trying to intimidate you.

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.

To me, what you're describing is a failed attempt at intimidation. If you had been cowed, subdued, or intimidated, you wouldn't have stood up to those guys.

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...

I agree that intimidation is not mind control. This is precisely why I don't call for a check when a PC is the target. I don't see any value in checking a PC's involuntary responses when the player can just decide to do whatever s/he likes. To use someone else's formulation, this comes down to whether you role then roll, or if you roll then role. I prefer the former.

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"

That seems to be what happened, however. The bikers failed to have the influence they wanted to gain over this person, either through intimidation or persuasion, so they resorted to violence to prove they were willing to back up their threats, and hopefully have an easier time intimidating people in the future.

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....

This only applies when using your definition of intimidated. I don't use ability checks to determine the emotional states of PCs.

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

Fair enough. It sounds like you and you group are genuinely happy with that, so no harm done, and please don't think I'm being dismissive.

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

Not really. The DM's prerogative to describe the Orc as an intimidating presence is in no way dependent on a die roll. Proficiency with Intimidation suggests that well enough.

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

You didn't. I did, because that's what I see as the Orc's goal in trying to intimidate.

 

[iserith]

Since the question of why monsters even have these proficiencies came up, I'd like to show an example of where these ability checks might come into play.

In my Halloween adventure scenario, The Laboratory-Tomb of Dr. Viktor Vampenstein, a Charisma (Persuasion) check is required to keep the flesh golem, Vampenstein, from rampaging and destroying the lab and focusing attacks on the PCs. (See the flesh golem's Berserk trait.) This would likely fall to an NPC ghost, Igor Renfield.

There's also a strong possibility that the werewolves Kessler and Lupin try to intimidate another werewolf, Corvin, if the PCs try to sway Corvin to their side. Dr. Vampenstein may attempt to deceive, intimidate, or persuade his vampire spawn, Selene, if she is tempted to betray her creator.

So as you can see, these ability checks can come into play. I just don't think they should be rolled to resolve uncertainty related to having an effect on the PCs.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Then we agree that giving in to intimidation (i.e. letting yourself be intimidated) is a choice.



You're making a distinction here between an attempt to intimidate (which I would represent with a die roll), and the success or failure of that attempt (whether the roll hits the DC or not). To me, this is like an attack roll only resolving how well an attack is aimed but not whether it hits.



This depends on how you define intimidated. I'm willing to concede that sometimes people have a hard time controlling their feelings, but I disagree that determining that is what an ability check is for. I rather think it's about determining whether the creature making the check achieves its goal or not. An attempt to intimidate implies a motive other than causing a fear response.



See, I would say that you didn't let yourself be intimidated by him. If I was to represent your interaction with a Charisma (Intimidation) check, I would say he failed because he was unable to achieve his goal in trying to intimidate you.



To me, what you're describing is a failed attempt at intimidation. If you had been cowed, subdued, or intimidated, you wouldn't have stood up to those guys.



I agree that intimidation is not mind control. This is precisely why I don't call for a check when a PC is the target. I don't see any value in checking a PC's involuntary responses when the player can just decide to do whatever s/he likes. To use someone else's formulation, this comes down to whether you role then roll, or if you roll then role. I prefer the former.



That seems to be what happened, however. The bikers failed to have the influence they wanted to gain over this person, either through intimidation or persuasion, so they resorted to violence to prove they were willing to back up their threats, and hopefully have an easier time intimidating people in the future.




This only applies when using your definition of intimidated. I don't use ability checks to determine the emotional states of PCs.







Fair enough. It sounds like you and you group are genuinely happy with that, so no harm done, and please don't think I'm being dismissive.







Not really. The DM's prerogative to describe the Orc as an intimidating presence is in no way dependent on a die roll. Proficiency with Intimidation suggests that well enough.




You didn't. I did, because that's what I see as the Orc's goal in trying to intimidate.

I'm just going to jump right in here at the end since it all comes down to us disagreeing what it means to be intimidated...

being scared is a natural response, and one I think is somethimes need to be relayed to the PC... 'hey, you feel afraid' or "He intimidates you' and that it enhances the game world that something in the game world is effecting the game world...

no you go on to say that if someone intimidates you, but you don't react the way they want you too, that is a failed intimidation. I disagree....

Intimadating a coward works that way, intimidating a bully is a good way to get punched in the nose, intimidating a gun nut with an ichey trigger finger is a good way to end up dead.

Since the question of why monsters even have these proficiencies came up, I'd like to show an example of where these ability checks might come into play.

In my Halloween adventure scenario, The Laboratory-Tomb of Dr. Viktor Vampenstein, a Charisma (Persuasion) check is required to keep the flesh golem, Vampenstein, from rampaging and destroying the lab and focusing attacks on the PCs. (See the flesh golem's Berserk trait.) This would likely fall to an NPC ghost, Igor Renfield.

There's also a strong possibility that the werewolves Kessler and Lupin try to intimidate another werewolf, Corvin, if the PCs try to sway Corvin to their side. Dr. Vampenstein may attempt to deceive, intimidate, or persuade his vampire spawn, Selene, if she is tempted to betray her creator.

So as you can see, these ability checks can come into play. I just don't think they should be rolled to resolve uncertainty related to having an effect on the PCs.

um... ok you wrote up a cute adventure that uses them... that doesn't answer anything unless you find something that WotC or Mearls or someone said or did that shows that was the intent... I could write up an adventure that uses them my way just as easy... it just shows we use them differently not that one is right and the other is wrong and not that one is using the skills correctly as intended and the other house ruleing

 

[iserith]

um... ok you wrote up a cute adventure that uses them... that doesn't answer anything unless you find something that WotC or Mearls or someone said or did that shows that was the intent... I could write up an adventure that uses them my way just as easy... it just shows we use them differently not that one is right and the other is wrong and not that one is using the skills correctly as intended and the other house ruleing

It absolutely does answer the question as to why a monster has them if they aren't used by a DM to resolve uncertainty as to a PC's reaction - they can be used to resolve uncertainty as to an NPC's reaction.

I encourage you to write up an adventure as I have done that demonstrates your methods. Near as I can tell from what you're saying, your method doesn't have any effect at all on PCs and so I wonder why it is employed at all.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It absolutely does answer the question as to why a monster has them if they aren't used by a DM to resolve uncertainty as to a PC's reaction - they can be used to resolve uncertainty as to an NPC's reaction.

I encourage you to write up an adventure as I have done that demonstrates your methods. Near as I can tell from what you're saying, your method doesn't have any effect at all on PCs and so I wonder why it is employed at all.

I'm sorry you don't think "Here is an in game stimuli now react to it." is effecting your character at all. I will tell you that in general people who don't want in game things to effect them will find my games far less entertaining...

 

[iserith]

I'm sorry you don't think "Here is an in game stimuli now react to it." is effecting your character at all. I will tell you that in general people who don't want in game things to effect them will find my games far less entertaining...

You're both establishing the stimulus ("Beat Horsedeath tries to intimidate you...") and the response ("You're intimidated...") though.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You're both establishing the stimulus ("Beat Horsedeath tries to intimidate you...") and the response ("You're intimidated...") though.

no I'm setting up the stimuli... Your character has a physical condition, one that in the real world no one has control over, but you get to decide how you react in game...

re read the thread I have hashed this out with you, and others