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

[JediGamemaster]

If "intimidated" was one of the listed conditions in the game, I might agree with you. But it's not.

then there would be rules forcing you to act one way instead of roleplaying HOW YOU REACT TO IT

I'm not sure I agree with you on that. I think being intimidated *is* a choice.

there is no discussion here because it is just a disagreement neaither can prove...

]Have your players actually asked you to use your NPCs' social skills on their PCs? How do you know that that's what they want?

YES THET HAVE... two of my players MUCH PREFER skill rolls, and even some of my old friends from 2/3e sometimes want to... the game is a set of players and a DM we all agree on how we play

 

[Sunseeker]

I never play that way.


Player: "I think he's lying."
DM: "Roll Insight."
Player: "Um...4."
DM secretly rolls Deception 12.
DM: "He seems trustworthy."
Player: "Do you mean I can't tell if he's lying, or that I actually believe him?"
DM: "You don't think he's lying, but you don't have to believe him."

I do the same. I never tell my players how they feel or what they think unless it is by magical means. I tell them how convincing their opponent is. They're free to not believe the NPC, but it does become tedious when players who choose to not believe anyway persist in obnoxious questioning, even to the point of violence when they don't get their way.

 

[iserith]

I disagree if you roll bluff vs insight and the bluff wins or the insight wins it is the same result regardless of if one or the other or both are PCS

A Wisdom (Insight) check is generally the same result for me: (Success) You determine the NPC's truthfulness. (Failure) You fail to determine the NPC's truthfulness.

At my table, a Charisma (Deception) check typically means: (Success) You deceive the NPC. (Failure) You fail to deceive the NPC or you deceive the NPC but [cost or complication].

 

[JediGamemaster]

In my view, when it comes to D&D, the players are in full control of their characters. The player determines if the response the character has was within the character's control or not, if they wish to establish that e.g. "True to his cowardly nature, Sneaky Pete reflexively readies himself to bolt if blades are drawn..." It would be equally fine at my table if the player said "Sneaky Pete is cowardly, but this mission is important enough that he overcomes and stands up to the guard..."

that's fine in my games too... we aren't disagreeing here.

If you believe that players are the ones who determine how their characters think, act, and what they say, then the DM can't say that they are "intimidated." The DM may only describe what the NPC does. The player decides the results where the character is concerned.

you just play differently then I do, I have no problem with my players

This isn't real life. Players control their own characters completely, at least at my table.

they are at my table too

I'm not ignoring the rules, nor forcing players to ignore them. What would make you say that?

your trying to make a character decide to be intimidated instead of using the skills

 

[pukunui]

YES THET HAVE... two of my players MUCH PREFER skill rolls, and even some of my old friends from 2/3e sometimes want to... the game is a set of players and a DM we all agree on how we play

They like to make skill rolls. OK. But do they like it when you have the NPCs make social skill rolls against their PCs? Have they told you that it's OK for you to tell them that their PCs have been intimidated?

your trying to make a character decide to be intimidated instead of using the skills

Incorrect. We are trying to give our players the freedom to decide whether their characters are intimidated or not themselves. Instead of forcing their characters be intimidated whether the player likes it or not.

 

[JediGamemaster]

A Wisdom (Insight) check is generally the same result for me: (Success) You determine the NPC's truthfulness. (Failure) You fail to determine the NPC's truthfulness.

At my table, a Charisma (Deception) check typically means: (Success) You deceive the NPC. (Failure) You fail to deceive the NPC or you deceive the NPC but [cost or complication].

ok lets say 2 PCs want to do different things, one goes to the prince and makes a deal behind the other PCs back and then when he tries to lie to the PC they know out of game (they are all at the table) so it comes down to a skill roll because it is unknown variable then you roll and one PC wins

 

[iserith]

your trying to make a character decide to be intimidated instead of using the skills

Ability checks are used to resolve uncertainty. If you believe that the players are in control of how their characters react to an NPC's attempt to deceive, intimidate, or persuade them, then there is no uncertainty as the players say what happens. Because there is no uncertainty, there is no ability check.

 

[pukunui]

ok lets say 2 PCs want to do different things, one goes to the prince and makes a deal behind the other PCs back and then when he tries to lie to the PC they know out of game (they are all at the table) so it comes down to a skill roll because it is unknown variable then you roll and one PC wins

No, it isn't up to a skill roll. It's up to the players to roleplay their characters appropriately - keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate - so that everyone has as much fun as possible.

 

[JediGamemaster]

They like to make skill rolls. OK. But do they like it when you have the NPCs make social skill rolls against their PCs? Have they told you that it's OK for you to tell them that their PCs have been intimidated?

in the 15 years I have had an intimidate skill (there wasn't one in 2e but 3e and 5e do) I have never had a player complain and I have had a lot prefere it... even at cons. in 2007 I was at gen con and played in a big huge 15 player game and we got intimidated by a demon thing and none of us had a problem... I have had a bunch of different players over the years and this is the first time I have had people have an issue...the few times I have had people say anything they never were this much not getting it...

 

[JediGamemaster]

No, it isn't up to a skill roll. It's up to the players to roleplay their characters appropriately - keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate - so that everyone has as much fun as possible.

so there is an unknown outcome (if I can tell he is lieing) and we can't go completely out of game (because I know he is) so we need a way to resovle something with an uncertain outcome... how do we do that in D&D again... oh right dice