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

[GMforPowergamers]

I realize my earlier response was a little terse, so I'll try to explain myself. You said the Orc is being intimidating in an effort to avoid combat. I assume he expresses his desire that I back-off and makes some sort of threat to back this up, which is kind of silly if you think about it. He doesn't want to fight, so he threatens to fight me if I don't comply. It doesn't limit the decisions I can make in the least. If I still want to fight, the Orc will oblige me. If I don't want to fight, then he doesn't either. It seems to me that the ball is in my court, and yet the way you wish to resolve this situation is for the Orc to roll a Charisma check. Does that mean if the Orc hits whatever DC you set, I will have to do what he wants?

I would not let a PC say "Hey NPC do what I say," then make a skill check and just let it happen, I also wouldn't let an NPC do so to another NPC, or a PC...

so lets say you are fighting a group of orcs, and the chief steps out and slams his sword on his shield and lets out an intimidating cry... he then says "This ends here..." and points to the PC and I say in my DM role "He is going to try to cowe you and using intimidation rolls a 26..." the ball is now in the PC court...

Player A could say "Who, Ok my ranger holds his hands up and thinks... he is taken aback."
Player B is just as right to say "My bard smiles and puts on the charm 'Your right... lets talk this out no need to keep going'"
but at a different table we might have
Player A "My paliden never backs down even when confronted with over welming odds. I move in and attack"
Player B "Lawful dumb is on his own, my rogue knows the better part of valor and I run"
but at a third table we could have
Player A "... I surrender"
Player B "What? really, OK I guess I do too..."

being intimidated is a reaction to stimuli how you CHOOSE to act is still yours...

I know I used to have my sorcerer stutter and cower at any threat... even at 17th level when I had 8th level spells...

I mean, that's how I'd run it if the Orc wanted to intimidate an NPC. Assuming the NPC is hostile to the Orc, a DC 20 Charisma check from the Orc would result in the NPC complying with the Orc's request to not fight him as long as that decision carries no risk for the NPC, i.e. there isn't someone else threatening the NPC with some consequence if s/he doesn't fight the Orc.

this only makes sense if that NPC would be doing that... an NPC barbarian is as likely as any PC to choose fight over flight... "Congrats you scared me, my only choice is to strike out like a child now"

This makes sense for an NPC because s/he is being run by an impartial DM, so the dice can inform the NPC's decision making, but a player is not impartial with regard to his/her PC.

It depends, sometimes I have generic NPCs, but somethimes I have spent a lot of time detailing the minds and thought process of my NPCs...

The player is meant to assume the role of the PC and advocate on behalf of his/her character at the table.

yes he is meant to assume the role of the PC, and make all of the consiuse choices... and sometimes even control the world around the PC or some set of NPCs around the PC... but that doesn't make him more or less in control of the whole world...

Placing mechanical constraints on the player in the social pillar, the part of the game that is most about roleplaying, seems to go against this.

letting a player in the social pillar ignore the rules and character sheet doesn't seem any more roleplaying... you took on the role of your character, now play it...

Maybe I don't understand you, but I'm sorry you're sick. I hope you feel better.

Thanks, I've had a head flu for a day or so now...it's getting better tonight...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

By the time a player is making the ability check in my game, we're indeed testing to see whether exactly what they want happens. The stakes are made clear by context or directly outlined e.g. "If you succeed on the Intimidate check, you will cow the orc, Beat Horsedeath, into surrendering. If you fail, Beat Horsedeath kills the hostage." When we've gotten to this point, the player has already established a goal and an approach and now I've decided that the outcome is uncertain.

very rearly in my games are things so black and white... "I intimidate him into surrendering" may or may not work and you only know if you know the character you are intimidating...

 

[iserith]

How do you rule it the other way around? E.g. the org, Beat Horsedeath, is trying to cow the player character into surrendering.

I describe what Beat Horsedeath is doing. Then I ask the players what their characters do.

Or, to phrase my question differently, are the social skills for PCs only?

No. Where it comes to PCs, however, the DM can't determine what a player thinks, does, or says in my view, short of magical compulsion. Therefore, if an NPC or monster tries to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a character, the player decides the outcome by describing what he or she wants to do. There is no ability check on the part of the monster.

 

[iserith]

very rearly in my games are things so black and white... "I intimidate him into surrendering" may or may not work and you only know if you know the character you are intimidating...

The point at which we are making a roll though, enough context has been created to allow for the possibility of intimidating Beat Horsedeath into surrendering, but also the possibility that he may kill the hostage. Remember also that players do not choose when or if they make ability checks in my game, as I believe is intended by the rules. The context must support the possibility of success or failure in achieving the character's goal given the character's approach and the situation before an ability check is called for.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I describe what Beat Horsedeath is doing. Then I ask the players what their characters do.



No. Where it comes to PCs, however, the DM can't determine what a player thinks, does, or says in my view, short of magical compulsion. Therefore, if an NPC or monster tries to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a character, the player decides the outcome by describing what he or she wants to do. There is no ability check on the part of the monster.

what if the PC is unsure and asked... you know you got out of your way to describe the orc... and the PC says "I don't know I'm really brave, how scary is this guy really?"

or

You have an NPC try to convince a PC to do something, and describe it and the players says "Well, how charismatic is the guy and how believable?"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The point at which we are making a roll though, enough context has been created to allow for the possibility of intimidating Beat Horsedeath into surrendering, but also the possibility that he may kill the hostage. Remember also that players do not choose when or if they make ability checks in my game, as I believe is intended by the rules. The context must support the possibility of success or failure in achieving the character's goal given the character's approach and the situation before an ability check is called for.

in my game it is up in the air who decides, we are 3/4 of us DMs at one point of another (all of us have at least 1 campaign under our belt) so no one of us ever has all the power when it comes to rules, we are friends and often decide as a commettie or group, not always but a lot of the time...

 

[iserith]

what if the PC is unsure and asked... you know you got out of your way to describe the orc... and the PC says "I don't know I'm really brave, how scary is this guy really?"

"I don't know - it's your character. You tell me. And please do stuff rather than ask the DM questions."

If, however, the player wants to describe his or her character as trying to size up Beat Horsedeath, then that's an action I can adjudicate and it might call for an ability check.

You have an NPC try to convince a PC to do something, and describe it and the players says "Well, how charismatic is the guy and how believable?"

"You heard my description, right?"

If, however, the player wants to describe his or her character as trying to discern the true intentions of the NPC, then that's an action I can adjudicate and it might call for an ability check.

 

[iserith]

in my game it is up in the air who decides, we are 3/4 of us DMs at one point of another (all of us have at least 1 campaign under our belt) so no one of us ever has all the power when it comes to rules, we are friends and often decide as a commettie or group, not always but a lot of the time...

Yeah, I figured that. It's why I also asked this question in post #302. I wonder if there is correlation between doing things that way and disagreeing with my position.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

"I don't know - it's your character. You tell me. And please do stuff rather than ask the DM questions."

If, however, the player wants to describe his or her character as trying to size up Beat Horsedeath, then that's an action I can adjudicate and it might call for an ability check.



"You heard my description, right?"

If, however, the player wants to describe his or her character as trying to discern the true intentions of the NPC, then that's an action I can adjudicate and it might call for an ability check.

Dude you would really tell someone to stop asking questions?

 

[Saeviomagy]

This seems to be just wordplay in my view in an attempt to obfuscate what I feel is an important distinction about what the DM should be describing and narrating in his or her particular role. The characters see the wizard casting a ball of fire.

No, they see a man gesticulating, holding certain materials and waving his hands. Turning those observations into "he's casting fireball" requires a thought process, and if the character in question has poor arcana, the conclusion may be incorrect.

The character recalls that yellow mold can be destroyed by ice.

Only if they've previously seen or heard that exact thing. In which case there's no need for a roll.

The shopkeeper is lying, based on his nervous mannerisms.

Or he's not, because he's double bluffing. Or he's not because the character is unaware of mannerisms local to the area, or any number of other things. But apart from that, the character sees something, applies his mental stats and ends up with a result. If that's not thinking, I'm not sure what is.

The DM isn't telling the player how his or her character acts or thinks. These are the DM describing the environment followed by two examples of the DM narrating the results of the adventurer's actions.

The descriptions have been abstracted from the source observations by knowledge and deductions. Further, those deductions may be incorrect or incomplete depending on the character. The DM is dictating what the character thinks what their observations mean and is probably also coloring the description with emotion that is not selected by the player. A game where the DM delivered only raw objective descriptions would probably be quite dull, and would take a very long time to get anywhere.

I do not believe the DM should tell a player how his or her character feels because that goes to how the character thinks and acts.

Good DMs constantly tell players how their characters feel, but they do it implicitly through the building of engaging descriptions. It's a core element of effective storytelling. Directly saying "your character feels scared" might be crude, but it's not actually doing anything differently from dimming the lights, putting on spooky music, and describing a scene with an appropriate mood and in a low voice. You're influencing the players mood and therefore the character's actions.

I strive to stick to simply describing the environment, determining uncertainty, and narrating the results of the adventurers' actions. Where the character is concerned, the player determines how it acts, what it thinks, and what it does.

At a guess, if a player describes their character doing something impossible, the result at most tables and in most games will not be "ok, that happens", and I doubt that anyone would have an issue with that. The player is responsible for the character's choices, and no other boundary is absolute.