D&D General "I roll Persuasion."

[Bill Zebub]

because when you say they will follow the rules of the game... but they say they would NOT follow rules that had less magical charm and frighten effects.

It's a weird key word problem... "Your character fears and moves away from this character" "Wait how?" "magic..." Oh okay"
change the word magic to psychic... no problem... change it to skill and see what happens.

Wait...where's the rule that says something to the effect of, "If an NPC makes a Charisma(Persuasion) roll of X or greater, the character is compelled to do what they say?"

The rules for fear, charm, etc. are pretty explicit.

As an example, I said in another thread that I would allow a character to hold action and cast the gust cantrip on an archer as they take their shot, thus imposing disadvantage. Now, that's not a rule, its a made-up DM result. It doesn't contradict any rule, but it's not a rule. I might, as a player, say, "Whoah, wait a second. That infringes on one of my core beliefs about how D&D is played and I'm not cool with that, and you just made that up." (I mean, I can't imagine why a player would have that reaction, but that's neither here nor there.)

Same thing with NPCs "using" social skills on PCs. It's just not in the rules. It doesn't contradict the rules if the DM wants to make up such a rule, but it's not in the rules. And it does so happen to contradict my foundational belief that players get to choose what their characters think, and what actions they declare, unless the rules specifically state otherwise.

 

[jgsugden]

When it comes to impacting PCs, persuasion and intimidation checks control their involuntary responses. The Players have absolute autonomy over their voluntary responses.

Thus, if an NPC tries to intimidate a PC during a negotiation, and they beat the DC I set, the PC will have an involuntary response to the intimidation. I might describe this externally and physically (flinching, shrinking back) or internally and mentally (smiling on the inside despite yourself, feeling your pulse race). This allows players to do as they see fit with their characters, but can give some significance to the use of social skills.

As an example: Two armies are coming together on the battlefield and the PCs have successfully managed to get the leaders of both sides to meet one last time to try to find a peaceful situation. The PCs are a neutral third party. One side is a bunch of intellectual naturalists trying to protect their homeland, and the other side are a bunch of tribal marauders that have depleted the resources behind them and see the only path to more resources to be going through the firest domain of the naturalists.

When the leaders from both sides meet with the PCs, I might have that Tribal Maruader Leader roll an intimidation check as he enters the tent while using his teeth to pull the raw flesh from an 18 inch long bone. The other Tribal Leaders as NPCs may be cowed by such a display, shrinking back and being unsettled and disgusted visibly by the surprising scene. I'll use the roll to determine how, in general, they react to the scene. The roll will mostly determine how the action is taken.

However, I'll set DCs for each PC based upon their circumstances and if the Tribal Maruder Leader beats the DC for a given PC, I'll tell the players that they feel nauseous - and those that fail by more than 5 have a moment wheere they show it. However, once I tell them that, they're free to decide what they want to do. They can steel themselves and confront the marauder, or they might continue to play off of the involuntary response. It is their call. The roll will give them involuntary responses and input on how they might respond, but it is up to them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

What's funny here is that Pathfinder 1E, a game beloved by the very sort of people who are appalled in the way you're describing, absolutely DOES let you cause all sorts of serious on-battlefield effects with social skills with the right Feats. For example: Dazzling Display (Combat) – d20PFSRD

I don't/didn't play PF so I wouldn't know, but at least that effect is codified in the rules (kind of like the Berserker Barbarian's ability to cause fear, right?), and not just some made-up DM effect that takes away player control.

Edit: I will add that my position isn’t that it’s flat out wrong for players in RPGs to be told what their characters think/feel/do, but rather:
1) I prefer that it be treated as a significant boundary
2) When that boundary is crossed I believe it should be because of clear and codified rule, not DM improv
3) D&D 5e, by RAW, meets my criteria

 

[Umbran]

this reminds me of a comdian talking about his wife

Rodney Dangerfield used to talk about the arrangements he had with his wife.

Mod Note:
Folks, the misogynistic jokes are really not going to fly. Please stop. Thank you.

 

[Bill Zebub]

However, I'll set DCs for each PC based upon their circumstances and if the Tribal Maruder Leader beats the DC for a given PC, I'll tell the players that they feel nauseous - and those that fail by more than 5 have a moment wheere they show it. However, once I tell them that, they're free to decide what they want to do. They can steel themselves and confront the marauder, or they might continue to play off of the involuntary response. It is their call. The roll will give them involuntary responses and input on how they might respond, but it is up to them.

So why set DCs and roll? Just describe the scene. Players who want to play along and act intimidated will do so, others won't.

Now, maybe the players find it a helpful roleplaying cue to use the dice. That's cool. But that is a totally made-up use of the dice, outside the rules of 5e. I have zero problem with things like that. I do have a problem with any argument that this is somehow how 5e is supposed to be played.

 

[Celebrim]

For those debating why players are more hesitant to play in a game that allows social skills to be used on them to control their character as opposed to magic being used on them, I think it would really help your understanding to begin with the stance that the players have a rational reason and work from there.

I think it comes down to two things.

1) Players have reason to suspect that magical compulsion will be rare and exceptional, where as social compulsion would be ubiquitous. The thing about mundane skill is that it's generally a per round ability you can use any number of times per day and everyone can do it. So if skill based compulsion was a thing, they would be exposed to it repeatedly in a way that they wouldn't be with magical compulsion.
2) Players have every reason to believe that skill based compulsion would be less fair than magical compulsion. Magical compulsion generally depends on the ordinary standard system of magical resistance like "saving throws" which games work hard to balance and which is not heavily reliant on GM fiat. Skill based compulsion would depend on a games social system which is inherently hard to balance owing to the complexity of human social interaction and which therefore almost always has to rely very heavily on GM fiat. Players therefore have very good reason to believe that if social skill based compulsion applied to the PCs, that it would be extraordinarily easy for GMs to justify treating the player characters like puppets.

This is not an irrational position, nor is it an oversight in the rules that the social skill based compulsion doesn't apply to PCs.

Stepping back into an even broader overlook, this is actually a subset of the fact that we are always playing a character and we are not simulating a character. Yes, if the goal was to simulate the player character, we would have social skills apply equally to the player character and we wouldn't treat the player character as if they were different than non-player characters. Yes, if the goal was to simulate the player character we would always use the characters mental and social attributes in place of the players. But that approach that the goal is to simulate the character and that to be fair the social and mental attributes of the character always are used in place of the players leads to immediate incoherence.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is not an irrational position, nor is it an oversight in the rules that the social skill based compulsion doesn't apply to PCs.

It doesn’t really, by RAW, apply to NPCs, either.

 

[Celebrim]

It doesn’t really, by RAW, apply to NPCs, either.

I don't know 5e well. I do know that in 3e ironically Diplomacy didn't apply compulsion to NPCs, but Intimidate actually could. And Bluff occupied a middle ground where while it didn't compel the NPC actions, it did compel the NPCs beliefs which while leaving some wiggle room, logically often should compel NPC actions (such as a bouncer letting you into the party if he believes you belong there).

 

[Azuresun]

does not charm and dominate already do this?
we HAVE effects for this.

the same way you don't (out of game) get mad that a NPC or PC spent a single action to dominated you to attack your party healer... now your character most likely wont like it when it wares off... why would if be worse if over a 10 min period you and a maste manipulator had a mental show down that ended with you being dominated or charmed... cause again when it wares off or is countered (deprograming even works on cult members) your character can hate the person.

The difference is that that is a magical, obviously unnatural effect after which the character returns to normal. There's a distinction between having a spell cast on you, and being "genuinely" persuaded (especially when the player disagrees that the argument was actually persuasive to their character), which changes the character you're playing (pretty much the only thing you have control over in the game).

And more seriously, talking having that level of mechanical weight or potential for harm leads to the above point about perverse incentives--be prepared for PC's to start clapping their hands over their ears or drawing swords whenever dice come out during a conversation. Or silly dynamics with one PC "deprogramming" the others when they know OOC that persuasion mind-whammy happened, meaning a lot of pointless dice-rolling.

never in my life have I meet someone so sure they can not be conned...

There is a good point there that most social systems don't take into account; that there are some things that you just can't persuade someone of by dice-bombing them, and even the attempt would probably ensure they don't trust or listen to you unless you put a LOT of work into setup. I'm fairly sure that no matter how charismatic I am, I couldn't persuade you to sell your best friend into slavery based on a single conversation.

 

[payn]

For those debating why players are more hesitant to play in a game that allows social skills to be used on them to control their character as opposed to magic being used on them, I think it would really help your understanding to begin with the stance that the players have a rational reason and work from there.

I think it comes down to two things.

1) Players have reason to suspect that magical compulsion will be rare and exceptional, where as social compulsion would be ubiquitous. The thing about mundane skill is that it's generally a per round ability you can use any number of times per day and everyone can do it. So if skill based compulsion was a thing, they would be exposed to it repeatedly in a way that they wouldn't be with magical compulsion.
2) Players have every reason to believe that skill based compulsion would be less fair than magical compulsion. Magical compulsion generally depends on the ordinary standard system of magical resistance like "saving throws" which games work hard to balance and which is not heavily reliant on GM fiat. Skill based compulsion would depend on a games social system which is inherently hard to balance owing to the complexity of human social interaction and which therefore almost always has to rely very heavily on GM fiat. Players therefore have very good reason to believe that if social skill based compulsion applied to the PCs, that it would be extraordinarily easy for GMs to justify treating the player characters like puppets.

This is not an irrational position, nor is it an oversight in the rules that the social skill based compulsion doesn't apply to PCs.

Yeap, so the system would need something like pass/fail once every 24 hours per target or something to limit the onslaught of social combat. Or, some limit on per short/long rest to make it seem more inline with combat pillar.

It doesn’t really, by RAW, apply to NPCs, either.

This is a general D&D thread, it was RAW in 3E. I think they were right to move away from it though. I recall threads about folks making diplomancers that could just skill NPCs into whatever they wanted. Arguments around NPCs not having the correct stats and skills to withstand the PC's abilities, so its an auto succeed. This is the kind of thing you welcome into the game with social mechanical systems.

My ideal spot on this is that players have social skills and can impact NPCs, but not the reverse. Although, NPCs can effect other NPCs. Give GMs a DC table in the DMG for how to call these situations on the spot. Don't make it a hard coded mechanical system, or you will cut the heart out of social role play. IMO, of course.