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

[discosoc]

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?

It's a potential option, but one with lots of fairly obvious consequences if you think about it. First of all, you have to succeed. And regardless of success, people really don't respond well to intimidation tactics. So maybe the person lets you pass this time, or runs away in fear or whatever, but you can bet they'll be looking for payback later on.

More importantly, as GM, i have no problem with my NPCs running in fear or cowering or even just giving up information after such a check, because they aren't Heroes. They're just NPCs. But Heroes who rely on intimidation because it's the easiest path aren't really deserving of the title, and that will get reflected as much as the story progresses. I'm a big advocate for player choices always having consequences -- often bad, and especially when the choice was the easy path.

 

[JediGamemaster]

LOL. It would appear you prefer rollplaying to roleplaying.

that is totally insulting I role play all the time I just think that there are times when you need to use dice...

 

[iserith]

I might potentially use a monster's CHA + Skill as the DC for a player check. I.e., if you want to Intimidate a War Chief the DC is their Charisma + 5.

Sure. Or call it 10 + monster's skill. Or do opposed rolls. All good ways to help the DM set DCs.

 

[JediGamemaster]

maybe we should go for one of my examples... the cook is about to lie and tell the players he was out doing something but the PCs are bad at telling if people are lying, but the CHaracters are very skilled in it... and the best character (has a feat and high wis) is the one that is the most oblivus to clues... if I tell him 'he is acting shady' she will ask what that means...

 

[pukunui]

I just think that there are times when you need to use dice...

And I think that when an NPC wants to persuade or intimidate a PC is not one of those times. Barring magical compulsion, the players get to decide how their PCs react to the things my NPCs say or do. Not the dice.

maybe we should go for one of my examples... the cook is about to lie and tell the players he was out doing something but the PCs are bad at telling if people are lying, but the CHaracters are very skilled in it... and the best character (has a feat and high wis) is the one that is the most oblivus to clues... if I tell him 'he is acting shady' she will ask what that means...

If your players aren't very good at picking up on clues or judging a lie from the truth, that's their problem. You don't need to hold their hand or make things extra easy for them - or, worse yet, tell them what their characters think or how they act.

 

[JediGamemaster]

How are you using it? The approach matters because it might result in automatic success or failure. If, as the DM, I am thinking that this NPC is nervous and is sweating because he knows he's telling a lie and is worried about getting caught, and I have a player who tells me that they're watching him closely to see if his body language or mannerisms betray him, I might just tell them straight out - no roll required - that he does appear to be quite nervous. His hand is shaking and he keeps mopping sweat from his brow. This should indicate that they might not be telling the truth - or at least not the whole truth.

If you *really* want to roll - that is, if you *really* want to have a chance to fail - then by all means, be vague. But if you want to succeed, then be as specific as possible.

Maybe it's just 6 years of playing with someone who is really broken, but I would never be that advaserial to her, I would just let her roll... and if someone else even someone normally better had an off night and just asked for a roll I would let them too... I agree if you can get really diescrptive and give a great rp story you might auto get it... but I wouldn't not let my player roll

 

[JediGamemaster]

And I think that when an NPC wants to persuade or intimidate a PC is not one of those times. Barring magical compulsion, the players get to decide how their PCs react to the things my NPCs say or do. Not the dice.

I disagree

 

[iserith]

I don't think I'm telling them, the game is, it is the same as anything else dice rolls

It's not the game - it's you. The DM is in charge of the game, not the rules. The DM describes the environment, determines whether a character's actions are uncertain, and narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

But if you and your players are okay with the DM saying how a character acts or thinks, party on. In my games, the DM - with ability checks and dice or not - cannot determine how a character thinks, acts, or what he or she says short of magical compulsion. Only the player can determine these things.

I'm not sure I see an upside to telling players how their characters act or what they think, then expecting them to play to that. I'd rather they just play how they see fit based on my description of the environment. If my description of the intimidating guard gives the player pause (or doesn't) or doesn't faze the player but he or she decides to play into the character's cowardly flaw, then it's all good. The latter might even be worth Inspiration.

 

[pukunui]

Maybe it's just 6 years of playing with someone who is really broken, but I would never be that advaserial to her ...

How is it being adversarial? Your approach sounds more adversarial to me than mine does. If I was your player, and you told me that my character was intimidated - not because of magic but because your dice said so - I would not like that at all.

5e takes a very old school approach to gaming. The roleplaying comes first. The dice are just there to be used to help determine uncertain outcomes. In fact, the 5e DMG outright says that the rules are there to serve you, the DM, not the other way around.

I disagree

Care to expand on that? If you're going to tell your players what their characters think or do, then why even have players? That makes it sound more like you're writing a story with a live audience than playing a cooperative game with other people.

 

[JediGamemaster]

It's not the game - it's you. The DM is in charge of the game, not the rules. The DM describes the environment, determines whether a character's actions are uncertain, and narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

the npc took an action, used a skill and I fairly used and apply the rules..

But if you and your players are okay with the DM saying how a character acts or thinks, party on.

I don't get to say, but NPCs can take actions that effect (both magic and mundain)

In my games, the DM - with ability checks and dice or not - cannot determine how a character thinks, acts, or what he or she says short of magical compulsion. Only the player can determine these things.

I dno;t understand the difference between magic and skill in this case.

I'm not sure I see an upside to telling players how their characters act or what they think, then expecting them to play to that. I'd rather they just play how they see fit based on my description of the environment.

because it is another tool in the tool box

If my description of the intimidating guard gives the player pause (or doesn't) or doesn't faze the player but he or she decides to play into the character's cowardly flaw, then it's all good. The latter might even be worth Inspiration.

I agree but there are times that descriptions don't work, and that is when dice help determain the outcome