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

[discosoc]

can I ask a related question... if you have a player who isn't good with social stuff out of game, but has a high wis skillful character how do you relate? I mean if he has wis 16 and prof in insight can't tell if your npc is lieing or not? I mean it has to be a roll, and the bluff skill vs the PC insight skill seams the best match?

Most social interactions like deception or persuasion will be rolled against insight. Generally speaking, you'll want to roll against their "passive" score, but you could just ask them to roll insight (it will be less predictable though).

And in case you aren't familiar with passive scores, it's page 175 in the PH.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah, I agree with all of those. It's never taking away player agency.

I don't think that agency means you can do what ever you want... agency is you are in control, but if someone intimidates your character I as the DM am not going to intimidate the person across the table... so the roll makes it then the persons agency is how they react to being intimidated, or bluffed, or persuaded...

 

[JediGamemaster]

Most social interactions like deception or persuasion will be rolled against insight. Generally speaking, you'll want to roll against their "passive" score, but you could just ask them to roll insight (it will be less predictable though).

And in case you aren't familiar with passive scores, it's page 175 in the PH.

no I know about them (I sometimes forget at the table) I like setting up cards ahead of time with "hey your arcana tells you such and such" with those rules, I just don't understand how this question comes up...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Instead, let the player just take disadvantage on checks if they choose not to keep moving, dealing with the guard.

Does that mean "Intimidate" is kind of a universal 'apply Disadvantage to target' ability? Doesn't that just make it a zero-cost Fear spell? Can PCs do that to NPCs?

 

[iserith]

can I ask a related question... if you have a player who isn't good with social stuff out of game, but has a high wis skillful character how do you relate? I mean if he has wis 16 and prof in insight can't tell if your npc is lieing or not? I mean it has to be a roll, and the bluff skill vs the PC insight skill seams the best match?

At a minimum, a player must describe what he or she wants to do so that the DM can narrate the result of the adventures' action. This means clearly explaining the proposed goal and approach. It does not require being "good with social stuff out of game."

"By observing [NPC]'s body language and mannerisms..." <-- Approach
"I try to determine if [NPC] is being truthful." <-- Goal

If the result of that action is uncertain in the eyes of the DM, then there is an ability check. The DC might be a fixed number according to the DM's reading of the situation or a number set by an opposed roll. If the DM thinks that the approach relative to the goal and the situation results in certain success or failure, then there is no roll and the DM simply narrates the result.

 

[JediGamemaster]

This doesn't happen at my table. I don't tell a player what his or her character thinks or believes. If a player rolls and fails a Wisdom (Insight) check, I tell him or her whether or not the character is able to discern the truthfulness of the NPC e.g. "[NPC] is lying" or "You fail to discern whether [NPC] is lying or telling the truth." Sometimes on a failed check, I'll reveal the NPC's truthfulness at a cost or with a setback.

this seems so weird to me... do you tell them what they know with know checks like arcana or do you make them look it up because you don't tell them what there character thinks?

I wouldn't do this either. Short of magical compulsion, it's not for me to tell a player how his or her character thinks or acts. I just describe the intimidating actions of the guard and ask "What do you do?"

I don't tell them how he acts, but if an NPC uses there ability to interact with the PC I let them know "Hey he intimidated you, he bluffed you"

 

[JediGamemaster]

At a minimum, a player must describe what he or she wants to do so that the DM can narrate the result of the adventures' action. This means clearly explaining the proposed goal and approach. It does not require being "good with social stuff out of game."

"By observing [NPC]'s body language and mannerisms..." <-- Approach
"I try to determine if [NPC] is being truthful." <-- Goal

If the result of that action is uncertain in the eyes of the DM, then there is an ability check. The DC might be a fixed number according to the DM's reading of the situation or a number set by an opposed roll. If the DM thinks that the approach relative to the goal and the situation results in certain success or failure, then there is no roll and the DM simply narrates the result.

so if one of my players (Kelly) was playing your game and said "Can I roll to see if he's lying" what would you tell her... I ask because she is the most stereotypical nerd/shy girl she can't tell even obvius lies in real life, and in game she never trusts herself...

 

[JediGamemaster]

Does that mean "Intimidate" is kind of a universal 'apply Disadvantage to target' ability? Doesn't that just make it a zero-cost Fear spell? Can PCs do that to NPCs?

hence my good for the goose style of gaming... but I also let people react to intimidate in game... "hey my orc punches things that intimidate him" is a perfectly fine NPC or PC reaction

 

[pukunui]

[MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION]: Here's how I'd most likely do it ...

1) Detecting a Lie: If the NPC is actively trying to deceive a PC, I'd most likely roll the NPC's Deception vs the PC's passive Insight. If, however, the PC's player is actively suspicious of the NPC, I'd most likely roll the NPC's Deception and then ask the player to roll Insight with a DC equal to the NPC's Deception roll. If the player fails, I'd most likely tell them that they can't be sure if the NPC is lying or telling the truth.

2) Being Intimidated: I don't generally roll Intimidation checks against PCs, but if I were to do so, and the NPC were to succeed, I'd most likely just tell the PC's player that the NPC is being intimidating (rather than telling them that their PC feels intimidated). I might add that the NPC looks like they could follow through with their threat of violence or whatever. Basically, I'd try to give the player the impression that going along with what the NPC wants is in their character's best interest without forcing their hand.

3) Using Persuasion: Like Intimidation, I don't generally have NPCs roll to persuade PCs. I usually just have the NPCs state their case and leave it up to the players to decide whether or not their PCs are convinced. If, for some reason, I were to roll Persuasion against a PC, though, I would, again, just say that the NPC's argument is fairly convincing or that it doesn't look like the PC would be able to change the NPC's mind on the subject and should try a different tack. I wouldn't tell the player that their PC is persuaded, though.

Does that make sense?

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Huh. Interesting responses so far.

I'm with jrowland and ad-hoc. It never would even have occurred to me to play that way,

this thread is very educational, I never would have thought to play without the skills working both ways.