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

[Valmarius]

I just do all that with skills applied evenly PC and NPC

This is probably the biggest difference in our style, to be honest. I tend not to give NPCs any social skill checks, they tend to be more reactive to the actions and skill checks of the PCs.
And to each their own, I'm not gonna cut on anyone who plays differently from me. Otherwise it'd be me vs everyone else

 

[Shirebrok]

A few days ago, I had a back-and-forth with someone (Jedigamemaster, I think?) who would roll Intimidate against PCs, but not force people to act according to the roll. Rather the players could use that as a DC of sorts if they ever needed a roll to figure out how they would react.
Does anybody else do this? Because I've read a few people saying they roll for intimidiation/persuasion/deceiving, but don't tell the players how to act. I wonder why there is a roll at all if that's the case. As far as I can tell, only Jedigamemaster has provided a justification so far, but I doubt his or her method is universally used.

Why do some DMs roll intimidate/persuasion/deceit versus PCs? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

A few days ago, I had a back-and-forth with someone (Jedigamemaster, I think?) who would roll Intimidate against PCs, but not force people to act according to the roll. Rather the players could use that as a DC of sorts if they ever needed a roll to figure out how they would react.
Does anybody else do this? Because I've read a few people saying they roll for intimidiation/persuasion/deceiving, but don't tell the players how to act. I wonder why there is a roll at all if that's the case. As far as I can tell, only Jedigamemaster has provided a justification so far, but I doubt his or her method is universally used.

Why do some DMs roll intimidate/persuasion/deceit versus PCs? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.

in my case it is the messureing stick I use to see how intimidating my NPC is...

Hunk and Lunk are both orcs using the same stats (hey my NPCs are limited) so both have +9 intimidate... Hunk comes out and tries to cowe the PCs, and I roll a 1... so he gets a 10... MY PCs are 15th level and laugh at that 10. We joke for a minute and decide that means he burped and gave himself the hickups... 2 rounds later Lunk comes out and tries the same thin and roll a 17... so 26... this time MY PCs all stop in there tracks. this time Lunk Growls and is very threatening.

 

[Imaculata]

why does there need to be a mechanical effect? My PCs all speak englesh we are all on the same page, intimidated is a pretty straight forward word...

Each character can react in a different way to intimidation. One might ignore it, another might be cowered, or afraid, and maybe yet another would attack. How a character reacts, is up to the person playing that role.

An intimidating sailor in a bar could provoke a dwarf character into a bar fight, or if the dwarf is a pacifist, he could do the exact opposite. It all depends on how the character is played, and a DM can't really determine for a player how he/she should react.

Why do some DMs roll intimidate/persuasion/deceit versus PCs? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.

I roll such checks versus PC's, so I know how to describe what follows next. I don't automatically assume that an npc is successful at an intimidate, plus a player might decide to return the favor. And when that happens, it all comes down to who has the higher roll. When it comes to deceit, I don't roll for that. When it comes to persuasion, that is definitely something I roll for. Maybe a merchant is trying to get a better deal out of selling an item, and depending on the roll, his story would change.

 

[MostlyDm]

These are great. Up until about 6years ago that first one would have never been something I'd do. The world was mine. I've had a lot more fun since loosening my hold on the reins.

No joke; I saw you XPed this post, and I thought about it some more. Removing the dictator role from GMing has provided me with better games in the last 5 years than in the 15 years before that combined.

In my current main campaign I began with literally zero prep and we built the world together; one of my players decided the world theology in the first session. In the years since then, I've had my two players run mini-campaigns within the same world, intersecting the main storylines. I've run the players running villains opposed to their main PCs.

Basically just a lot of stuff I never would have done in the old days. My games are a lot better because of it.

 

[Shirebrok]

why does there need to be a mechanical effect? My PCs all speak englesh we are all on the same page, intimidated is a pretty straight forward word...

Because if it's something that has no bearing or effect on the scene being played out, you just took time to roll to establish some flavour. You could have gotten the point across without the roll, no?

 

[MostlyDm]

A few days ago, I had a back-and-forth with someone (Jedigamemaster, I think?) who would roll Intimidate against PCs, but not force people to act according to the roll. Rather the players could use that as a DC of sorts if they ever needed a roll to figure out how they would react.
Does anybody else do this? Because I've read a few people saying they roll for intimidiation/persuasion/deceiving, but don't tell the players how to act. I wonder why there is a roll at all if that's the case. As far as I can tell, only Jedigamemaster has provided a justification so far, but I doubt his or her method is universally used.

Why do some DMs roll intimidate/persuasion/deceit versus PCs? I'm still trying to wrap my head around that.

In the game I mention above I've had players ask me for a social skill check against them, when they were on the fence about how to react to an NPCs dialogue and behavior. It doesn't happen often but it happens.

They've also asked for DCs for other stuff, like to keep down their lunch when exposed to particularly gruesome gore.

DMing a couple of long-time DMs is the best.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Each character can react in a different way to intimidation. One might ignore it, another might be cowered, or afraid, and maybe yet another would attack. How a character reacts, is up to the person playing that role.

An intimidating sailor in a bar could provoke a dwarf character into a bar fight, or if the dwarf is a pacifist, he could do the exact opposite. It all depends on how the character is played, and a DM can't really determine for a player how he/she should react.

I agree to all that. You get intimidated then you decide wwhat to do.

"Hey my dwarf's fight or flight response is to fight" is perfectly OK in my world.

"hey my dwarf runs away" is fine too.

"Hey my dwarf makes a joke" is A OK... (some people use humor to hide when they are intimidated)

I'm sure there is a large mix of those, and maybe a dozen or so other reactions...

 

[Imaculata]

In the game I mention above I've had players ask me for a social skill check against them, when they were on the fence about how to react to an NPCs dialogue and behavior. It doesn't happen often but it happens.

They've also asked for DCs for other stuff, like to keep down their lunch when exposed to particularly gruesome gore.

DMing a couple of long-time DMs is the best.

My players roll for all sorts of things all the time. That's because they enjoy using their skills, and so I allow a wide application of them. They use diplomacy not just in difficult negotiations, but also when trying to get a better deal at a merchant, or when they want to talk themselves out of a fight. We even use it when the players want to motivate their crew, although as a DM I do want to hear what they tell their crew (just a roll is not enough).

You might be wondering, why ask for a roll, when it really comes down to role playing? Well both the roll and the role playing affect the outcome. A player can do a fabulous job coming up with some great diplomacy, but if he rolls badly, then I'll introduce something in the narrative that complicates his story. He can then still improvise to talk himself out of it, and can thus still succeed.

 

[iserith]

No joke; I saw you XPed this post, and I thought about it some more. Removing the dictator role from GMing has provided me with better games in the last 5 years than in the 15 years before that combined.

In my current main campaign I began with literally zero prep and we built the world together; one of my players decided the world theology in the first session. In the years since then, I've had my two players run mini-campaigns within the same world, intersecting the main storylines. I've run the players running villains opposed to their main PCs.

Basically just a lot of stuff I never would have done in the old days. My games are a lot better because of it.

I'm in the same boat and about the same time frame. In fact, the transcript you're reading is based on a world we created together during Session Zero (and further developed during play).