D&D 5E Charisma to prevent giving out info during interrogation?

[Cadence]

Something to consider: Why would I, as DM, put myself in a situation where I would have to set up an interrogation or torture scene and create special mechanics that allows me to control what a character says, when I can just have my NPCs get that information from a divination spell or gathering information on the street or scrying or some other means already at my disposal? Why am I not happy with the player deciding what to divulge in these situations? Like what is going on here exactly?

Why play a game where your players are out in a situation where they are threatened with physical violence and need a ton of combat rules to resolve it? Why not just be satisfied with all the non combat resolution things? Why not just let the players auto succeed on all combat?

Because the inspirational literature has fights?

I might argue that the inspirational literature has people captured or beguiled non-magically? The later seems ick and the former feels like it doesn't happen that often though.

But why let the PCs have a chance of doing it to NPCs then if it isn't common in the genre.

"It's what the rules say" seems like a fine answer to why someone would be on with the asymmetry between PC and NPCs, or between physical failure and mental failure.

Continuing on about an it makes no it seem to me like it's more than just the rules though and that there is something intrinsically we value more about mental control than physical control.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There are a lot of things in fiction where the main character is distracted or drugged that don't involve magic. Having those things be impossible seemed odd to me. (I guess those examples might be perception check modifiers though? Is a con save to not pass out from too much alcohol a fair thing in 5e?)

It’s not impossible. The player is free to narrate the outcome you seem to be expecting.

I don’t see the value in imposing that outcome on them.

 

[Cadence]

It’s not impossible. The player is free to narrate the outcome you seem to be expecting.

I don’t see the value in imposing that outcome on them.

What's the value of having them fail a skill check or saving throw or to-hit roll? Why is that different?

Does it just come down to "mental control and the like is different than physical" (beyond simply the rules).

If so ...

Why would it being magical beguilement than just regular charisma and manipulation make it different (beyond just the rules)?

Why do we view physical restraint of action differently than mental?

If not, ignore the above two lines.

 

[iserith]

Why play a game where your players are out in a situation where they are threatened with physical violence and need a ton of combat rules to resolve it? Why not just be satisfied with all the non combat resolution things? Why not just let the players auto succeed on all combat?

If we're looking at it from a rules perspective, then it's because the game says there's some uncertainty when it comes to these things and a meaningful consequence for failure and therefore some kind of check is appropriate. But when it comes to players deciding what their characters try to do, there is no uncertainty. It's whatever they say it is. In the case of this thread, how they respond to interrogation (again, short of magical compulsion or the like). No uncertainty, no roll.

 

[iserith]

It’s not impossible. The player is free to narrate the outcome you seem to be expecting.

I don’t see the value in imposing that outcome on them.

Right. The DM and I might both think it's appropriate for my character to break down and give the NPC what they want. But ultimately it's for me to decide, not the DM.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What's the value of having them fail a skill check or saving throw or to-hit roll? Why is that different?

Does it just come down to "mental control and the like is different than physical" (beyond simply the rules).

If so ...

Why would it being magical beguilement than just regular charisma and manipulation make it different (beyond just the rules)?

Why do we view physical restraint of action differently than mental?

If not, ignore the above two lines.

Well, would it make sense to reverse it? Dice rolls determine thoughts and decisions, but the success or failure of the resulting actions are up to the player? I mean, it would be an interesting experiment, but bizarre.

Or should we treat them both the same, and EVERYTHING is dice rolls? That would not be fun, imo.

I suspect we all agree that at least most of the time the line is where I am saying it is, and the only disagreement is over some edge cases, such as the one in this thread. It seems to me the simplest solution is to treat it like the non-edge cases, which has no downsides unless one doesn’t trust players to make what the DM thinks is the “right” decision.

But if somebody really wants to treat those edge cases as exceptions, with mechanics overruling agency, my hope is that it be codified in a rule, and not left to DM whim.

 

[Asisreo]

It's a great deal simpler than that for me. The rules say what I control as a player - what my character thinks, says, and does - and it has clear exceptions for when I don't get to control those things (e.g. magical compulsion) and how I might avoid that outcome (e.g. saving throws).

Would you be opposed to the Madness rules found in the DMG, which would have your character say, think, or attempt things outside of the player's idea but is also nonmagical?

In fact, one madness effect could potentially lead the player to answer questions regardless of characterization.

 

[Cadence]

Well, would it make sense to reverse it? Dice rolls determine thoughts and decisions, but the success or failure of the resulting actions are up to the player? I mean, it would be an interesting experiment, but bizarre.

Is ones willpower cracking or succumbing to an addiction a "decision" someone makes any more than physical collapse or being incapacitated by the flu is?

Or should we treat them both the same, and EVERYTHING is dice rolls? That would and not be fun, imo.

I agree. So I'm a lot more likely to have auto successes on a lot of skill checks lately (in part due to conversations on here with @iserith and others).

I suspect we all agree that at least most of the time the line is where I am saying it is, and the only disagreement is over some edge cases, such as the one in this thread.

Seems that way to me to.

 

[iserith]

Would you be opposed to the Madness rules found in the DMG, which would have your character say, think, or attempt things outside of the player's idea but is also nonmagical?

In fact, one madness effect could potentially lead the player to answer questions regardless of characterization.

I'm opposed to some of the short and long-term madness effects of the optional Madness rules, yes, so I don't use those. I have used Indefinite Madness because it plays into how I handle Inspiration and it's still at the player's discretion whether to have the character act that way (in order to gain Inspiration).

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm opposed to some of the short and long-term madness effects of the optional Madness rules, yes, so I don't use those. I have used Indefinite Madness because it plays into how I handle Inspiration and it's still at the player's discretion whether to have the character act that way (in order to gain Inspiration).

Yes. As a general principle if we wish to influence roleplaying I prefer incentives to play a character a certain way (e.g. mad, persuaded, smitten, etc.) rather than a restriction/requirement.