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

[Shirebrok]

if you go back one of the other posters said it better then me, but I will try.

When something happens (in real world or game) your body pick up a lot more then just visual tells. When that happens your body give off all sorts of singles...You interpret how to react based on this stimuli. Some people are trained in acuratly using the stimuli to make your body send certain signles... this in no way mind controls you. You and you alone are always in control of how you respond...

and again in or out of game that paragraph is true. the example of the borg and star trek with data is that they are rampping up for a fight and they can feel lots of things, data (and data alone) can turn off those inputs. All I am doing is using the input... notice even in the youtube short I posted of the scene, picard doesn't act controlled or even back down... the stimuli is the intimidation, now how do you react...

I am well aware of all this, but it doesn't answer my question.

I asked specifically about how you communicate in this thread, about a specific phrase being used and how you're using it. It's not about the game or real world psychology; it's about how you're expressing yourself and your ideas in this conversation.

So, again: When you say "The orc intimidates you", do you mean:

A) "You feel scared of the orc."
or
B) "The orc is attempting to scare you."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I am well aware of all this, but it doesn't answer my question.

I asked specifically about how you communicate in this thread, about a specific phrase being used and how you're using it. It's not about the game or real world psychology; it's about how you're expressing yourself and your ideas in this conversation.

So, again: When you say "The orc intimidates you", do you mean:

A) "You feel scared of the orc."
or
B) "The orc is attempting to scare you."

wow you guys are really relentless today... reread my answer it's in there...

When I say something like that I am relaying ingame sensory information... not just visual or adatory (although those too(

 

[Hriston]

I asked him a similar question, yes. I asked you the same question because you were arguing a similar point. I didn't expect to hear you opine on what Iserth's opinion was, I wanted to hear yours.

Well, then you probably shouldn't have asked me if I was with [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] on something that, as far as I know, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] doesn't subscribe to. I'm not here to defend someone else's position. If you want my opinion just ask me.

In IRL, I've never once been under the effects of a mind control spell. They don't exist. So I'm not following your train of logic, there.

Please try to follow me without getting hung up on semantics. I used IRL to refer to social interactions, not magic spells.

When someone IRL lies to me and I don't notice, I think they've told me the truth.

Why? Certainly not everyone is so gullible. Didn't anyone ever tell you not to believe everything you hear?

IGL (In Game Life), when someone lies convincingly to a character, should not that character also think they've been told the truth?

No, for the reason that the player can make the character's mind up about whether s/he believes the lie. I'm assuming the DM isn't just telling the player it's a lie.

Or is it only when magic or not-magic but different from social skills happens that such things can occur.

If a spell, or whatever game-feature but lets imagine it's a spell, is written in such a way that the target is said to automatically believe whatever the caster says is the truth, then yes, that would be an explicit exception to the general rule that players are in control of what their characters believe in a way that skill in Deception is not.

In short, you're actually fine dictating to a player what/how their character feels or thinks. Your line is 'magic' or 'ability' where ability is a vague grouping of possible mechanics you, at that moment, think should work.

There's nothing vague about it. The ability needs to explicitly state that's what it does.

But you don't have an issue with telling players how their character thinks. You just have that issue when it comes to social skills.

It's not just social skills. I don't make PCs roll a Morale check when they get to 1/2 hit points like I do NPCs, because the PCs can decide for themselves if they want to run away, so that decision belongs to the players. I don't assign PCs a Starting Attitude because the players can decide what their characters' attitudes are. PCs don't have Loyalty scores, etc.

Social skills are just another mechanic in the game, like magic or 'abilities'. As I said above, we agree that it's okay to tell players what their characters think, we just have a different opinion of how much it takes to do that.

Yeah, for me it takes an exception.

 

[Shirebrok]

wow you guys are really relentless today... reread my answer it's in there...

When I say something like that I am relaying ingame sensory information... not just visual or adatory (although those too(

I read your posts. I told you I find that they can be interpreted different ways. I asked for clarification by asking a simple question with two simple answers. I said I asked it not to be antagonistic, but because I believe that once I get that clarification, I'll know why we're talking past one another. I cannot be clearer or more brief than this.

So, A or B?

 

[iserith]

what is your issue... can you not read my simple answer I (me, the DM) doesn't (the opposite of does, a negative) take control form my PC(the think you claim I do with no reason other then you being stubborn)

It's not a matter of stubbornness. You're doing something and saying you're not. What I'm suggesting is you take ownership of what you're doing because there's no wrong way to play. Plus clearly your players are okay with being told their characters are intimidated.

Doesn't that sound like a reasonable and frankly unassailable position to take?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I read your posts. I told you I find that they can be interpreted different ways. I asked for clarification by asking a simple question with two simple answers. I said I asked it not to be antagonistic, but because I believe that once I get that clarification, I'll know why we're talking past one another. I cannot be clearer or more brief than this.

So, A or B?

neither A nor B, but at the same time BOTH A and B...

stimuli...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Easy - I'm the DM and I'm charged with describing the environment. And the players are charged with responding to that environment. There is therefore no uncertainty.

What's more, in 5e, you determine that there's uncertainty when you call for a check. No check, no uncertainty. That ball is entirely in your court.

that's because being intimidated IS the stimuli, and it is informed by game mechanic, now how your character response to it is up to you...

Feeling intimidated is the response. It's self-evident.

So you guys are drawing the stimulus|response line in different places? Not even that different, it seems. And, in both cases the bottom line is that the player has the PC do whatever he wants, regardless of what the 'stimulus' or the character, itself, were like?

Could it be that there's a chain of stimulus-response going on? And is that really what an intimidation roll models? Either how competent your threat display, or how successful you are at evoking an involuntary fear response? Because neither of those quite sound like the full 'intimidation' package, to me, somehow.

To get someone to do (or not do) something through intimidation, you'd have to be scary, sure, a credible threat. But, you'd also have to leave room for the victim to think that knuckling under will actually placate you, and you'd have to make it clear what you want. A lot of things don't exactly require verbal instructions, 'back off'/'out of my way'/'get out' can all be pretty obvious, but aside from that, it does seem to be an actual interaction skill, not just general scariness.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's not a matter of stubbornness. You're doing something and saying you're not. What I'm suggesting is you take ownership of what you're doing because there's no wrong way to play. Plus clearly your players are okay with being told their characters are intimidated.

Doesn't that sound like a reasonable and frankly unassailable position to take?

I am not doing something I say I am not... that is the point. You don't understand that at no time am I taking control from my PCs... full stop.

Until you can look at the whole picture including me NOT TAKING CONTROL, you aren't even trying to be part of the discussion.

 

[Shirebrok]

neither A nor B, but at the same time BOTH A and B...

stimuli...

You're kidding, right? :/

 

[Ristamar]

Whether or not the DM should dictate involuntary emotional responses to stimuli (particularly social skills) is an interesting topic, and I'm not sure there is a correct answer, nor were the D&D rules designed to provide those answers.

Feeling fear after an Intimidation check, while not always directly visible, is an emotional reaction. The question is whether or not it's a voluntary or involuntary reaction. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] believes the emotional response is voluntary, so he lets his players determine if they're afraid. [MENTION=67338]GMforPowergamers[/MENTION] believes it is involuntary, hence he narrates the emotional reaction, though he leaves any further response in the hands of the player.

I lean more toward iserith's style, but I understand the argument GMforPowergamers is making.