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

[iserith]

This makes me curious. How do you handle deception vs insight? If an NPC is lying to the characters, do you check anything? Does the NPC role his deception, and if higher than anyone's passive insight, do you just not add anything to the description? If he rolls lower, do you add description that might indicate he's lying or do you tell them they think he's lying? You've said you never roll until there's uncertainty, but this seems a social interact case where there's uncertainty that can't be resolved by letting the players make up their own minds. So, what do you do?

And, if you do do something, why should intimidate or diplomacy be much different?

I think I've already addressed this upthread, possibly even with my very first post. But I'll answer it again:

I describe what the NPC says. If the players seek to discern the NPC's true intentions, they state an approach to achieving that goal. I judge that approach relative to the goal and decide on success, failure, or uncertainty. In the case of uncertainty, I ask for an ability check to be made, probably Wisdom (Insight). The DC is either a static DC of my choosing, an opposed roll from the NPC, or the passive Deception score of the NPC. Success means the character's approach to determining the NPC's true intentions succeeds. Failure means the approach did not succeed.

As you should be able to see, I'm simply adjudicating the action of the character (discerning the true intentions of the NPC by some viable means such as studying body language and mannerisms) as described by the player. I'm not saying the character is deceived, even on a failed check.

 

[iserith]

Ovinomancer: Iserith will correct me if I misrepresent him, but... I think I can help clarify this for you a little. Just based on the style of narration in his transcripts, I think I can offer some insight

Think of Iserith's games as a novel he is writing. He writes everything except for four-to-six characters, who have their own authors for their actions and dialogue. If he magically controls one of them, he writes them for the duration of the spell. Otherwise, their author writes that character.

Yes, and I think this is consistent with the basic conversation of the game as per the Basic Rules - a group of people playing a game and, in the doing, having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story.

 

[iserith]

I was going to respond to other things you said but I got a good laugh here... you said something and people took it to mean something, but then you went back and explained... now your caught in this 'well I allow this but not that' and think people think you mean X when you mean Y...

It's rather how conversation works though, right? Someone doesn't understand something and you go back and clarify? As opposed to making up bad assumptions and strawmen, such as:

why do I find this funny? because at least 2 posters in this thread asked you to stop saying they make PCs think or act I a way, yet even still you insist that using intimidate to intimidate then letting the player think and act how they think there character would think and act as they see fit is taking away there ability to do so...

Because my position is that I think a DM who tells someone that the character is "intimidated," roll or no roll, is overstepping his or her role in the game. If you don't do that, then we have no beef. If you say Beat Horsedeath tries to intimidate me, we're good. If you even roll to inform your own narration without saying I'm "intimidated," we're still good.

But others have stated that what I object to is, in fact, what they do. I would not accept that in a game.

I again point out, I am yet to see anyone say "I can tell my players how there characters think or act"

At least a few people have stated that's how they play the game, some by quoting the original post and saying that's how they do things. You can go back and reread the thread to find it.

 

[iserith]

there is uncertainty... "How well does the NPC (Lie/cojole/intimidate) the PC"

it isn't up to the PC to decide how well the NPC did any more then it is up to the PC to decide what kind of Save he makes... "I tough out the fireball instead of jump away so that's a con save" or worse "I don't take fireball damage I'm too tough"

Again, this isn't the argument that I'm making. My position is consistent, but nuanced. It's helpful to read what I'm writing with a desire to understand. I don't get that from you given your last few pages of posts, but perhaps I'm misreading your tone.

I will clarify (again) in the hopes that you are trying to understand rather than find purchase to mount an attack: I'm not saying the player has any right to say how well the NPC did at whatever the NPC was attempting to do. The DM can say this without a roll at all. How the players respond to the NPC's attempt though is up to the player and I would object if you told me that I was "intimidated" by the NPC no matter how high you roll.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Because my position is that I think a DM who tells someone that the character is "intimidated," roll or no roll, is overstepping his or her role in the game. If you don't do that, then we have no beef. If you say Beat Horsedeath tries to intimidate me, we're good. If you even roll to inform your own narration without saying I'm "intimidated," we're still good.

telling you anything has been your issue. One of the others (I'm not going through 30ish pages to remember who) said they tell people to roll wis saves and then tell them the number then let them role play that and you told them that was over stepping...

you run your game as you like, but don't tell others they are doing something wrong...

But others have stated that what I object to is, in fact, what they do. I would not accept that in a game.

go accept what you will or wont but don't tell others they are forcing people to act or think if they tell you they aren't...

At least a few people have stated that's how they play the game, some by quoting the original post and saying that's how they do things. You can go back and reread the thread to find it.

hey weren't you pointing out straman arguments a moment ago? no one said they force anything on PCs, we all agree there is a major line, some of us put it in place A others in Place B... instead of pretending that the other side does something wrong and doesn't belive in the same thing you do realize that they are just slightly different not totally alien...

 

[iserith]

what about things that don't require an action... If I walk into a bar and get a bad feeling I turn around and walk out. I don't need to stop and say "What is my feeling" or take an action to check my feelings. You are physicaly incapabul (so is everyone else not just you) of packing enough detail into a description to mimic real life...

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, but to be clear I'm not referring to the mechanical "action" in the sense of actions, move, or action economy. I'm referring to the fictional action a character undertakes as described by the player. If I have described, for example, some seedy bar where something bad looks like it could happen any moment, a player may respond with "I retreat to the corner of the common room and take stock of the denizens, trying to get a sense of what bad things are happening here." That's an action the DM can adjudicate and what I prefer players have their characters do rather than ask questions of the DM.

 

[iserith]

How do you feel about the Barbarian's Intimidating Presence, then? It's not magic, so I guess it has no effect on PCs?

Right. And in any case, I don't create monsters and NPCs the same way. No monster I create would have that kind of ability.

See, the statement that magic is the exception to the general rule provides absolutely no reason why social skills are not also an exception. You've declared via fiat, not reasoning. Why are social skills not also an exception?

I already provided my reasoning for running the game as I do. It's okay if you don't agree with it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Again, this isn't the argument that I'm making. My position is consistent, but nuanced. It's helpful to read what I'm writing with a desire to understand. I don't get that from you given your last few pages of posts, but perhaps I'm misreading your tone.

You are totally misreading my 'tone' unless you think my 'tone' is "hey, be more open minded and stop telling people they are doing things they openly tell you they are not."

all I read from you is that "X=Y there for no matter how much you say you dislike Y I am totally going to keep say you are doing Y and not read any of your examples or nuances" followed from a few attempts at "Rule X says this and rule Y says that but I think X trumps Y and there is nothing anyone will ever say that will make me think otherwise byt I will argue till my death if someont things the revers."

I will clarify (again) in the hopes that you are trying to understand rather than find purchase to mount an attack: I'm not saying the player has any right to say how well the NPC did at whatever the NPC was attempting to do.

OK, but do you understand that if you describe an intimidation and you do a great description, you now leave it to a PC to decide how well it did...

How the players respond to the NPC's attempt though is up to the player and I would object if you told me that I was "intimidated" by the NPC no matter how high you roll.

so you don't see a difference between "I got a 7" and "i got a 26" on a skill check for how well the character (PC or NPC) did? this is what I mean the character skill should inform the roleplay...

 

[iserith]

telling you anything has been your issue. One of the others (I'm not going through 30ish pages to remember who) said they tell people to roll wis saves and then tell them the number then let them role play that and you told them that was over stepping...

you run your game as you like, but don't tell others they are doing something wrong...

go accept what you will or wont but don't tell others they are forcing people to act or think if they tell you they aren't...

I know it's been a long thread, but surely you recall at least one of the many, many times I have said that I'm telling you how I run things and how I like games to be run and that it's perfectly okay to play in whatever way you like.

Please tell me that I haven't typed words to that effect in vain.

hey weren't you pointing out straman arguments a moment ago? no one said they force anything on PCs, we all agree there is a major line, some of us put it in place A others in Place B... instead of pretending that the other side does something wrong and doesn't belive in the same thing you do realize that they are just slightly different not totally alien...

I have not created a strawman on this point. There are indeed people who say that they tell players that their characters are deceived, intimidated, or persuaded. Quite a few as I recall.

 

[MostlyDm]

Yes, and I think this is consistent with the basic conversation of the game as per the Basic Rules - a group of people playing a game and, in the doing, having fun and creating an exciting, memorable story.

I think that there are types of collaborative storytelling that may involve adding more constraints to players at times, even ones that temporarily impact their agency (aside from magic). If you have buy-in from the players for this type of game, it can work pretty well. But I don't think it is by any means always the best course of action.

As an aside, I actually have some issues with treating role playing too much like collaborative fiction writing. I enjoy both practices but I think they vary in some key ways that mean it doesn't help to approach them the same. But as I said earlier, I want to avoid offering you unasked-for criticism. It's clear your style works great for your table.