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

[pukunui]

man that would be so funny, she is obviously trying to see if he's lying what else do you need her to say?

She needs to describe how her character is trying to discern whether the NPC is lying. Is she studying his body language? Is she doing some mental fact-checking? Is she just going on her gut instinct? What?

 

[JediGamemaster]

I need her to describe what she wants her character to do by making her goal and approach clear. I will tell her if she needs to roll. This is the basic conversation of the game and the core resolution mechanic at work.

In a game where the DM decides whether the task undertaken by the character succeeds, fails, or has an uncertain outcome, basic game theory says you don't want to roll. You want to try for outright success and roll only as a fallback measure. So asking to roll doesn't make a lot of sense and intrudes upon the DM's role.

this seems crazy, you want someone who doesn't know how to tell if someone is lying or not to tellyou how she is telling if he is lying... it would be like asking me "How are you using that trap finding skill?" "Idon't know I'm not prof in real life...but my character is"

it seems like the whole idea of not using social skills is like not using physical skills... "Sorry instead of an athletics check I have this obstacle course."

the core of the game is roll d20 vs target DC I don't need to know HOW my character does something to do it.

 

[JediGamemaster]

She needs to describe how her character is trying to discern whether the NPC is lying. Is she studying his body language? Is she doing some mental fact-checking? Is she just going on her gut instinct? What?

why? would you ask the player of a rouge how he is picking a lock?

 

[iserith]

the only difference between us then is if the player would roll to intimidate so would my NPC... if I roll and say "I got a 17 intimidate cheak" would that be better then "I beat you on an intimidate check" I don't understand the NPC either did or did not intimadte the dice are a fair randomizer to decide...

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's not clear to me. Could you clarify?

If you're saying that you allow the dice to determine whether a PC is "intimidated," then I disagree. The essence of roleplaying is playing a role wherein the player is determining how his or her character thinks, acts, and what he or she says. As DM, I cannot decide for a player whether the character feels or acts intimidated. I can only say how the NPC acts and let the player decide how to act in the face of that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, yeah, sure.

So what the DM should do is try to describe the NPCs such that you, the player, think "Huh...I don't think I should mess with this NPC."

In other words, the DM (who knows all the secrets of the game) should use that information to deceive, persuade, or intimidate you. When the situation is reverse you should use the dice, because his NPCs also "have all the information", by dint of being controlled by the DM. Does that make sense?

I disagree it's unfair to ignore the skills of the NPCs. if my PC is facing a monster with a +14 intimidate, or +14 persuade it is different then if it has a +1 intimidate or persuade. I think the DM is supposed to use those skills and players are treated better when you use the skills

 

[iserith]

this seems crazy, you want someone who doesn't know how to tell if someone is lying or not to tellyou how she is telling if he is lying... it would be like asking me "How are you using that trap finding skill?" "Idon't know I'm not prof in real life...but my character is"

it seems like the whole idea of not using social skills is like not using physical skills... "Sorry instead of an athletics check I have this obstacle course."

the core of the game is roll d20 vs target DC I don't need to know HOW my character does something to do it.

At a minimum, a player must describe the character's goal and approach so that the DM can determine whether or not this results in success, failure, or uncertainty. See post #25 for an example.

The same applies to finding traps and getting through an obstacle course. You describe your goal and approach and the DM determines success, failure, or uncertainty.

"I try to detect traps..." <-- Goal
"...by carefully searching the floor tiles with the runes on them." <-- Approach

"I endeavor to make it to save the prince in time..." <-- Goal
"...by charging at top speed through the obstacle course." <-- Approach

Now the DM decides if there should be a check or not.

 

[Guest 6801328]

FWIW, this is exactly why I don't allow "Insight" to be used as a lie detector.

First of all, it's not "realistic" and although there are wizards and dragons in this game, I think the basic skills should represent normal human abilities. And humans simply do not have the ability to detect lies. (Strangely, there is evidence that cops who think they are good at detecting lies are actually worse than average.)

Second, it replicates a magic spell. A skill should not make a 2nd level spell unnecessary.

Third, it trivializes plots. A couple good Insight rolls and all the DMs preparation is out the window.

If a player wants to use Insight to detect lies, I might give them clues.

"I'll roll Insight to see if he's lying. 20!"
"You can tell he's nervous about something. He keeps glancing at the door, and he's sweating. You see his hand stray to his empty scabbard a few times; it's probably a good thing you took his sword away."

Or I might even use the 20 to then have the NPC contradict his own story, illustrating how the "insight" revealed the deception.

But I would never, ever, ever say "Yeah, you can tell he's lying."

 

[JediGamemaster]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's not clear to me. Could you clarify?

If you're saying that you allow the dice to determine whether a PC is "intimidated," then I disagree. The essence of roleplaying playing a role wherein the player is determining how his or her character thinks, acts, and what he or she says. As DM, I cannot decide for a player whether the character feels or acts intimidated. I can only say how the NPC acts and let the player decide how to act in the face of that.

The essence of roleplaying is to play your character in the situation that he or she represents. If an outside force act on your character then it is up to the DM to relay the information and then the player reacts. "The guard intimidates you" is no different then "It's raining"

 

[iserith]

The essence of roleplaying is to play your character in the situation that he or she represents.

The player determines that, not the DM. The player is in control of how the character thinks, acts, and what he or she says.

If an outside force act on your character then it is up to the DM to relay the information and then the player reacts. "The guard intimidates you" is no different then "It's raining"

"The guard acts in an intimidating fashion. What do you do?"

"It's raining. What do you do?"

In no way do I tell a player what his or her character thinks, does, or says. I describe the environment, the player describes what he or she wants to do, then I narrate the results.

 

[MechaPilot]

Well, yeah, sure.

So what the DM should do is try to describe the NPCs such that you, the player, think "Huh...I don't think I should mess with this NPC."

In other words, the DM (who knows all the secrets of the game) should use that information to deceive, persuade, or intimidate you. When the situation is reverse you should use the dice, because his NPCs also "have all the information", by dint of being controlled by the DM. Does that make sense?

I disagree it's unfair to ignore the skills of the NPCs. if my PC is facing a monster with a +14 intimidate, or +14 persuade it is different then if it has a +1 intimidate or persuade. I think the DM is supposed to use those skills and players are treated better when you use the skills

In a way, you are both doing the same thing, but with different methods.

By having the NPC roll and then just telling the player that her character feels intimidated by the guard, you are effecting intimidation in the PC. By using the result of the roll as an impetus to describe the NPC as intimidating, you are trying to elicit the notion of the PC being and acting as if intimidated in the player's mind.

Both seek to end up with the PC being intimidated by the NPC, but one is direct (the DM tells you your PC is intimidated) while the other is indirect (the DM uses description to try to make you think your PC would feel intimidated).