NPC Deception/Persuasion and player agency

[TwoSix]

Also, skills do not affect characters. Skills are not abilities. They are possible modifiers to attribute checks.

Ok, that's being more than slightly pedantic. Persuasion check, Charisma check, etc. etc.

There's nothing in the 5e rules that prevents a PC from talking to a NPC and trying to convince them of something.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If Persuasion and Deception can't be used on other characters, then what exactly are they for?

I mean, there's some very pissed off dead NPCs in BG3 if using Persuasion on them is cheating.

I am trying to draw a distinction between Persuasion and, say, Lay on Hands. The latter is an ability that can be “used” in a specified way.

Skills describe modifiers that might get added to a roll, at the DMs discretion, if a player describes an action that the DM thinks has an uncertain outcome.

It is right there in the book.

 

[Aldarc]

Exactly!

5e does not turn Persuasion and Deception into a magic spell that can be used on other characters, regardless of NPC or PC status.

I wish more people would read the rules, rather than assume it works the way it does (or maybe they imagined it does?) in some previous edition, or some other game.

When the rules seem to lean as heavily on "GM says" as 5e does, it's little surprise that GMs read exactly what they want to see in the text.

I think that it reasonable for a GM in good faith to read the section on Contests under Ability Checks and then decide that Contests can be used between two PCs (e.g., Deception vs. Insight) as it only has to be between two creatures and does not preclude two PCs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok, that's being more than slightly pedantic. Persuasion check, Charisma check, etc. etc.

Citation needed. I don’t think those phrases appear in the books.

 

[Aldarc]

Citation needed. I don’t think those phrases appear in the books.

The phrase "Charisma check" comes up several times on pages 178-179 of the 2014 PHB in the section on Ability Checks for Charisma. I can already tell you that it's not exclusive to these pages. The fact that the game prefers using Charisma (Persuasion) check instead of Persuasion check, IMHO, is needlessly splitting hairs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Right, so is Dominate Person.



Are we talking about 5e? Yes, Deception and Persuasion checks are mechanics with rules. But the applicable rules talk about how DMs can use those when players declare actions. Any "use" of those skills by PCs needs to be extrapolated.

Unless you've noticed something that I haven't.

(If we're not talking about 5e....and this thread is not in a D&D forum...then, yes, of course the rules are whatever the game in questions says they are.)



Again, if we are talking about 5e I don't think there's a special exception. The play loop defined for PCs is:

1. The player declares an action as a goal and approach. ("I want to persuade the guard to let us through by showing sympathy for the crappy assignments he always gets.")
2. The DM decides if that action automatically succeeds or fails, or if there is uncertainty. ("Hmm...how likely do I think this is to work?")
3. If there is uncertainty, and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, the DM may set a DC and ask for an attribute roll, possibly modified by a skill proficiency. ("Ok, that is going to take a DC 13 Charisma (Persuasion) check, but if you fail the guard is going to get suspicious.")
4. The player then makes the roll (or, in my game, may decide that the risk:reward profile is not attractive, and change their mind.)

Although 5e does not describe what to do if an NPC tries to persuade a PC, for those who think the rules should apply equally, I suggest we follow that exact same play loop, but in reverse. Which means the player decides whether success or failure is automatic. And if the player isn't sure, they are free to set some stakes and ask for a roll.

I can allow that one might not like doing it this way, and might choose to keep all that decision making with the DM, but I don't see how one could possibly claim that the 5e rules instruct us to do that.

Nor do I understand any argument for such a think might be necessary. What's the objection to giving the player the same control over their character that the DM has over theirs?

As I've said before, the player has a stronger incentive to protect their PC than the DM has to protect an NPC.

 

[TwoSix]

Citation needed. I don’t think those phrases appear in the books.

Come on, man. I’m happy to bow out of the thread rather than have a discussion of “What does Persuasion check mean, by RAW?”

 

[zakael19]

Come on, man. I’m happy to bow out of the thread rather than have a discussion of “What does Persuasion check mean, by RAW?”

Im starting to think he's the devil of arguing about details, trying to tempt us into the sin of endlessly parsing minutia on Internet forums.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The phrase "Charisma check" comes up several times on pages 178-179 of the 2014 PHB in the section on Ability Checks for Charisma. I can already tell you that it's not exclusive to these pages. The fact that the game prefers using Charisma (Persuasion) check instead of Persuasion check, IMHO, is needlessly splitting hairs.

I'll have to take your word for that. Gave my PHB away last month.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Im starting to think he's the devil of arguing about details, trying to tempt us into the sin of endlessly parsing minutia on Internet forums.

I think the distinctions are important. I wish I didn't have to split hairs on the words, but a lot of people don't seem to see any difference between a skill and an ability. Persuasion and Arcana are NOT like Lay on Hands and Reckless Attack and Second Wind. They are not "abilities to be used". They are proficiencies. It's a different word. (I mean, I would think that would be obvious...but we are having this debate. So...?)

Remember Specific > General?

The play loop is general. Those abilities are specific.

In the absence of a specific ability, you use the play loop.

In the play loop, the DM decides if an action would automatically succeed or fail, or if the outcome is uncertain.

If the DM decides the outcome is uncertain, he/she can ask for an attribute roll.

He/she may additionally allow a skill proficiency to apply to that roll.

Skills are not abilities.


So, sure, it seems harmless to say "Use Persuasion" as a shorthand, but then we end up in these conversations where people want to treat them as abilities. As "buttons to be pushed". (Hey, if my approach is going to get called, "Mother, May I"....)

So I don't know what to say.