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

[MostlyDm]

I think the DM is obligated to adequately describe the environment. ("Adequately" here does not mean "ponderously long.") I do not see this as "beating around the bush." It is simply the DM's role, a full third of the basic conversation of the game. You will know what Beat Horsedeath is trying to accomplish by way of my description.

"Adequately" doesn't mean ponderously long... Okay, but it also doesn't actually mean *anything.* How much is adequate? Who decides? ... You, presumably, since you don't want the players asking questions to fill in the gaps of your description.

I've definitely seen players having question paralysis, but far more often in my experience questions are simply an attempt to get all of the critical information.

If someone tries to "act" and the action isn't appropriate... What happens? Do you have their action fail and they suffer the (presumably often high stakes) consequences? Do you tell them their attempted action makes no sense?

If you tell them their action makes no sense you've simply reskinned asking questions as acting. You've trained your players to couch their questions as actions, but it's cosmetic. You've done nothing interestingly different from DMs who allow table questions.

If you penalize them for failure due to illogical actions attempted due to insufficient information, though, that's even worse. This is a common trait of some of us grognards that I've seen; a tendency to "if you say it you do it" and "no time to think, *what do you do?*"

That stuff is cool... If there is sufficient information. But nobody is a perfect narrator. You're going to screw up. Stuff you think is implied won't always be successfully conveyed. Under your system, the players pay the price... whether the fault is theirs for not paying attention, or yours for failing to illustrate the whole scene.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think the DM is obligated to adequately describe the environment. ("Adequately" here does not mean "ponderously long.") I do not see this as "beating around the bush." It is simply the DM's role, a full third of the basic conversation of the game. You will know what Beat Horsedeath is trying to accomplish by way of my description.

yes description is at least half the game... but I use game mechanics as short hand.

You are though. And that's okay if that's what you and your players enjoy. I would not.

that is where the big issue is... you keep thinking something is going on htat isn't... try again. We are not forcing anything on PCs we just use mechanics as short hand... the funny part is you say 2 or 3 sessions of telling people to stop asking quastions stops them... what do you think 2-3 sessions of using our short hand would do to 90+% of the PCs in the world...

I'll be honest, I doubt you would have a problem at the table, because nothing I do or say takes away any agency at the table, just in your mind here...

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

"Adequately" doesn't mean ponderously long... Okay, but it also doesn't actually mean *anything.* How much is adequate? Who decides? ... You, presumably, since you don't want the players asking questions to fill in the gaps of your description.

I've definitely seen players having question paralysis, but far more often in my experience questions are simply an attempt to get all of the critical information.

If someone tries to "act" and the action isn't appropriate... What happens? Do you have their action fail and they suffer the (presumably often high stakes) consequences? Do you tell them their attempted action makes no sense?

If you tell them their action makes no sense you've simply reskinned asking questions as acting. You've trained your players to couch their questions as actions, but it's cosmetic. You've done nothing interestingly different from DMs who allow table questions.

If you penalize them for failure due to illogical actions attempted due to insufficient information, though, that's even worse. This is a common trait of some of us grognards that I've seen; a tendency to "if you say it you do it" and "no time to think, *what do you do?*"

That stuff is cool... If there is sufficient information. But nobody is a perfect narrator. You're going to screw up. Stuff you think is implied won't always be successfully conveyed. Under your system, the players pay the price... whether the fault is theirs for not paying attention, or yours for failing to illustrate the whole scene.

this reminds me of one of my worst RP situations ever. I was playing in a deadlands game and it wasn't going great, but not horrid.

then came the Vampire... it was game 4 or 5, and he had the same 'no questions' rule... so he told the table "I pour on my supernatural charms and entrence tabby's character..."
SO I thought it was like a spell. SO my PC did what he wanted and things got VERY dark...like a trigger warning would be appropriate for what he was going to do to my character... but anyway the other PCs killed the vampire before it went to far... so I asked "SO does this damn charm end now?"

and he told the table how funny it was, because he was just describing how charming he was and my character totally fell for it... no magic. SO I objected...harshly. Needless to say that was the last session, and after that he only PCed once or twice with our group before he took off.

QUastions out of game, especially when people obfuscate rules and mechanics with flowery description is a must. I would not in 2-3 seesions stop asking quastions, evey time I am told for years (after that and other problems) will tell you I am a human you have no say in weather I question you or not, my character knows the world way better then I do and my passive sense pull in more then you can describe so NO I will not 'act' if I have quastions, nor will I wast in game actions for things my character should know or feel or notice without having to think about it...

 

[iserith]

"Adequately" doesn't mean ponderously long... Okay, but it also doesn't actually mean *anything.* How much is adequate? Who decides? ... You, presumably, since you don't want the players asking questions to fill in the gaps of your description.

There is some guidance on this in the Basic Rules and DMG. The DM says where the adventurers are and what's around them while presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves. I try to limit myself to 3 to 4 sentences.

I've definitely seen players having question paralysis, but far more often in my experience questions are simply an attempt to get all of the critical information.

Which they can get by doing stuff rather than asking questions in my view. In any case, the critical information that the characters have ready access to will already have been described.

If someone tries to "act" and the action isn't appropriate... What happens? Do you have their action fail and they suffer the (presumably often high stakes) consequences? Do you tell them their attempted action makes no sense?

If you tell them their action makes no sense you've simply reskinned asking questions as acting. You've trained your players to couch their questions as actions, but it's cosmetic. You've done nothing interestingly different from DMs who allow table questions.

If you penalize them for failure due to illogical actions attempted due to insufficient information, though, that's even worse. This is a common trait of some of us grognards that I've seen; a tendency to "if you say it you do it" and "no time to think, *what do you do?*"

After a player describes what he or she wants to do, I narrate the result of the adventurer's action, sometimes calling for a roll if the outcome is uncertain. Same as anything else.

At no point, however, do I want players to make uninformed choices. That doesn't stop them from doing so from time to time, of course.

That stuff is cool... If there is sufficient information. But nobody is a perfect narrator. You're going to screw up. Stuff you think is implied won't always be successfully conveyed. Under your system, the players pay the price... whether the fault is theirs for not paying attention, or yours for failing to illustrate the whole scene.

Scene-framing, telegraphing, adequately but succinctly describing - these are things I'm good at as I have spent a lot of time on it. (You're welcome to read my actual play transcripts and judge for yourself if you like.) If I felt a player was making a bad choice based on a mistake I have made, I would of course say something.

 

[iserith]

that is where the big issue is... you keep thinking something is going on htat isn't... try again. We are not forcing anything on PCs we just use mechanics as short hand... the funny part is you say 2 or 3 sessions of telling people to stop asking quastions stops them... what do you think 2-3 sessions of using our short hand would do to 90+% of the PCs in the world...

I'll be honest, I doubt you would have a problem at the table, because nothing I do or say takes away any agency at the table, just in your mind here...

If you told me my character was "intimidated," you can take me at my word that I would say something to you about it after the game.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If you told me my character was "intimidated," you can take me at my word that I would say something to you about it after the game.

and if you told me to stop asking questions about the world around me that my character Doesn't need to do anything to understand but I out of game do then I would say something right then and there... but again what would you say "Hey the orc is intimidating" isn't forcing anything on you...

 

[iserith]

then came the Vampire... it was game 4 or 5, and he had the same 'no questions' rule... so he told the table "I pour on my supernatural charms and entrence tabby's character..."
SO I thought it was like a spell. SO my PC did what he wanted and things got VERY dark...like a trigger warning would be appropriate for what he was going to do to my character... but anyway the other PCs killed the vampire before it went to far... so I asked "SO does this damn charm end now?"

and he told the table how funny it was, because he was just describing how charming he was and my character totally fell for it... no magic. SO I objected...harshly. Needless to say that was the last session, and after that he only PCed once or twice with our group before he took off.

If I understand you correctly, this enhances my point rather than detracts from it. He told you that your character was "entranced" which suggests one or two things (maybe both): One, your character's attention is captured by the vampire (which you should be deciding for yourself short of magical compulsion) and/or, two, your character just had a spell cast on her.

So we have an example of inadequate description and the DM determining how your character thinks and acts ("entranced"), followed by creepy behavior and a failure to take responsibility for the outcome. I don't think this happened because you couldn't ask questions. In fact, you might have taken an action like, "I try to determine if I'm under the effect of a magical spell..." or "I try to shake off the spell the vampire has over me."

 

[iserith]

and if you told me to stop asking questions about the world around me that my character Doesn't need to do anything to understand but I out of game do then I would say something right then and there... but again what would you say "Hey the orc is intimidating" isn't forcing anything on you...

Your objection to taking action to answer your questions seems to imply that you will have an inadequate picture of the environment because I failed to describe it adequately. That's going to be a very rare situation indeed at my table.

As far as my objection goes, I would tell you that saying my character is "intimidated" is overstepping the role of the DM in my view and I'd appreciate it if you would not do that. I'd tell you I have no problem with you using the dice to inform your narration, but whether or not my character is deceived, intimidated, or persuaded is my decision.

 

[Ristamar]

If I understand you correctly, this enhances my point rather than detracts from it. He told you that your character was "entranced" which suggests one or two things (maybe both): One, your character's attention is captured by the vampire (which you should be deciding for yourself short of magical compulsion) and/or, two, your character just had a spell cast on her.

So we have an example of inadequate description and the DM determining how your character thinks and acts ("entranced"), followed by creepy behavior and a failure to take responsibility for the outcome. I don't think this happened because you couldn't ask questions. In fact, you might have taken an action like, "I try to determine if I'm under the effect of a magical spell..." or "I try to shake off the spell the vampire has over me."

I think it's simpler than that. It's merely a case of an untrustworthy (and creepy) DM.

Taking advantage players with deliberate misinformation is hardly an accomplishment. In fact, it's the exact opposite.

 

[sunshadow21]

I think the main difficulty is coming from various definitions of adequate when it comes to description. I have played under over a dozen DMs over the years, and out of all of them, one has the skills necessary to meet what most people here would consider adequate for this style of play to work. You are right that most groups can potentially do this successfully, but the reality is that most never reach that potential.