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

[iserith]

So, if I understand correctly, the rules apply differently depending solely on the actors involved?

I would not like that.

The rules apply however the DM wants to apply them which, interestingly enough, is a rule.

See, I'd like to agree with this, but I really don't. The rules as written are meant to provide a framework, an agreed upon reference so that every player has an understanding of what to expect. It's fine to change that framework, and occasionally good to do so, but only if everyone is made fully aware of the changes. I'm sure you do that, but then to say in a general thread that the rules are fluid isn't entirely fair -- they're not really that fluid. This thread is an excellent example. We've both read the rulebook, and you clearly run your game a different way than I do mine, but you're using the fluidity of the rules as a defense instead of clearly stating where you differ from the baseline. And the rules are the baseline. They are important to be a baseline, and it's a valid assumption to make that the rules as written will be used unless stated otherwise. Anything else leads to unpleasantness in the game as seemingly arbitrary decisions change what would otherwise be expected.

The rules themselves are not fluid, being words typed on a page. How they are applied, however, is fluid. The rules serve the DM, not the other way around. And players have no recourse to the rules whatsoever, so I don't see them as a baseline either unless we are having a discussion about RAW (which I find generally useless). They are just tools to pick up and use as needed by the DM or left in the toolbox when they are not needed.

I like that I can overrule things in the rules. I like that I can modify things. But I still hold the rules as important and not something that is easily changed. I'm playing a game based on those rules, and people that sit at my table bring expectations that those rules will be used. I should endeavor to not change those rules without good reason and without informing the players beforehand. Anything else is being capricious.

I might agree with you in every edition but this one as I lean more and more these days to the notion that D&D 1e to 4e were actually just very complex board games that people used when roleplaying. D&D 5e, however, is different and the rules in an RPG are treated differently than in a board game. This shouldn't be taken as a slight against those editions - I loved all the ones I played and still play them. I just don't think about them the same way as I do D&D 5e.

Which probably explains my issues with your rulings -- they don't follow the rules and it took a great deal of questioning to get the corner cases nailed down because you were very fluid holding to an ideal not present in the rules. Allowed by them, yes, but not explicitly present, either.

My rulings do follow the rules though. I just think you view rules a particular way that doesn't quite fit an RPG. But that's okay if you're still having fun playing the game.

Since I don't think I recall you saying one way or another, I'd like to ask if you can respond to the question to I posed in post #302.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The rules apply however the DM wants to apply them which, interestingly enough, is a rule.

I dislike arbitrariness, which is what this means. I get it's not how you run, as you're clear that your players understand your rules, but that sentence, by itself, advocates for arbitrariness.

The rules themselves are not fluid, being words typed on a page. How they are applied, however, is fluid.

A distinction without a difference.

The rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

No, the rules serve the game.

And players have no recourse to the rules whatsoever, so I don't see them as a baseline either unless we are having a discussion about RAW (which I find generally useless). They are just tools to pick up and use as needed by the DM or left in the toolbox when they are not needed.

And this is another sop to arbitrariness. I discount this line of argument because the game, if you're using D&D, is predicated on the assumption that you're using the D&D rules, perhaps with some table rules to augment. What you're suggesting is that by sitting down at a D&D game, I'm should never have expectations based on the rules in the book, because the DM has absolute power. I tend to assume the final say, as well, but I do so only in cases that occur when the rules break down or when I've given prior notice, and while I'll issue a ruling at the time and do not allow argument, that's only because at the end of the session I will always hold a discussion on the rule and consider and listen to all arguments before establishing a binding precedent.

I might agree with you in every edition but this one as I lean more and more these days to the notion that D&D 1e to 4e were actually just very complex board games that people used when roleplaying. D&D 5e, however, is different and the rules in an RPG are treated differently than in a board game. This shouldn't be taken as a slight against those editions - I loved all the ones I played and still play them. I just don't think about them the same way as I do D&D 5e.

Wonderful! I agree RPGs aren't boardgames. This, however, isn't responsive to anything I have said.

My rulings do follow the rules though. I just think you view rules a particular way that doesn't quite fit an RPG. But that's okay if you're still having fun playing the game.

See, an accusation of badwrong. "[Your] view... doesn't quite fit an RPG." It's that note of superiority that has suffused all of your arguments -- that doing it in a way different from you is wrong. Yes, you allow that people can be wrong if they want, but that doesn't change the insinuation (and in this case the direct statement) that they are wrong to do it their way.

However, it's explicitly clear that you do not follow the rules in PvP use of abilities such as Intimidating Presence. The rules say that the user can target another PC and that PC must save or be frightened. You've chosen a different route, as is your right, but don't pretend that's following the rules.

Since I don't think I recall you saying one way or another, I'd like to ask if you can respond to the question to I posed in post #302.

i did, actually, address that when I explained how I use social skills in my game. Still, if I answered 'yes, I play that way,' would I be wrong to do so?

 

[iserith]

I dislike arbitrariness, which is what this means. I get it's not how you run, as you're clear that your players understand your rules, but that sentence, by itself, advocates for arbitrariness.

I disagree. I don't think arbitrariness is a necessary outcome and clearly a DM should be fair and consistent when making rulings. Those rulings might be based on rules or they might not be.

No, the rules serve the game.

I would say they serve the DM and the DM uses them in his or her role to help the group achieve the goals of play.

And this is another sop to arbitrariness. I discount this line of argument because the game, if you're using D&D, is predicated on the assumption that you're using the D&D rules, perhaps with some table rules to augment. What you're suggesting is that by sitting down at a D&D game, I'm should never have expectations based on the rules in the book, because the DM has absolute power. I tend to assume the final say, as well, but I do so only in cases that occur when the rules break down or when I've given prior notice, and while I'll issue a ruling at the time and do not allow argument, that's only because at the end of the session I will always hold a discussion on the rule and consider and listen to all arguments before establishing a binding precedent.

I'm not suggesting it - I'm saying it outright because I believe it's true based on my reading of the rules. The only limit is that the DM can't describe what the players want to do, including how they act, what they think, and what they say. Players control that part of the conversation. The DM controls the rest.

Wonderful! I agree RPGs aren't boardgames. This, however, isn't responsive to anything I have said.

It's me saying I think, based on your comments, that you view the game as if it were a previous edition which is a root cause of our disagreement.

See, an accusation of badwrong. "[Your] view... doesn't quite fit an RPG." It's that note of superiority that has suffused all of your arguments -- that doing it in a way different from you is wrong. Yes, you allow that people can be wrong if they want, but that doesn't change the insinuation (and in this case the direct statement) that they are wrong to do it their way.

No, it is not an accusation of "badwrong." See my comment above.

However, it's explicitly clear that you do not follow the rules in PvP use of abilities such as Intimidating Presence. The rules say that the user can target another PC and that PC must save or be frightened. You've chosen a different route, as is your right, but don't pretend that's following the rules.

The rules say that a 10th-level barbarian can frighten someone with his or her menacing presence. Then there are some mechanics provided that the DM can choose to use to resolve uncertainty in that effort - uncertainty that the DM establishes, not the rules. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions per the basic conversation of the game. If I as DM base that narration on how the targeted player thinks the action will turn out, I am still following the rules.

i did, actually, address that when I explained how I use social skills in my game. Still, if I answered 'yes, I play that way,' would I be wrong to do so?

Not wrong, but it fits with the correlation I'm sensing with regard to those who disagree with my position. Many of those who disagree with me let their players control when ability checks are made as if they are powers that can be activated. I don't think that is what the rules intend, even though it's certainly a common way for people to play. I think that method arose in 3e and 4e (both games I play and like), but is not compatible with D&D 5e as I see it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The rules say that a 10th-level barbarian can frighten someone with his or her menacing presence. Then there are some mechanics provided that the DM can choose to use to resolve uncertainty in that effort - uncertainty that the DM establishes, not the rules. The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions per the basic conversation of the game. If I as DM base that narration on how the targeted player thinks the action will turn out, I am still following the rules.



Not wrong, but it fits with the correlation I'm sensing with regard to those who disagree with my position. Many of those who disagree with me let their players control when ability checks are made as if they are powers that can be activated. I don't think that is what the rules intend, even though it's certainly a common way for people to play. I think that method arose in 3e and 4e (both games I play and like), but is not compatible with D&D 5e as I see it.

The correlation I see is people who think Players should never question the all powerful DM and people who think the DM SHOULD change the rules instead of COULD change rules think that they understand this edition better then the rest of us...

There is nothing the matter with PCs calling for a skill roll, especially when a group knows ahead of time what is expected.

Your way:
Player thinks (I should use my high score in intimidate)
Player says: I do X Y and Z to try to intimidate this guy.
DM thinks (Gee is there both a chance of success and fail?)
DM says: Roll intimidate
action resolves.

my way
Player thinks and says "Can I try to intimidate him with X Y and Z I got a 17
DM says "Ok" then narrates the results...

 

[iserith]

The correlation I see is people who think Players should never question the all powerful DM and people who think the DM SHOULD change the rules instead of COULD change rules think that they understand this edition better then the rest of us...

I don't see anyone taking those positions. First, I don't have an issue if the player wants to question why a ruling was made a particular way. (It just happened the last time I ran a game, in fact.) As well, I'm not advocating changing the rules. I am saying that the rules are tools that serve the DM and not the other way around and to that end I haven't changed any rules.

There is nothing the matter with PCs calling for a skill roll, especially when a group knows ahead of time what is expected.

Your way:
Player thinks (I should use my high score in intimidate)
Player says: I do X Y and Z to try to intimidate this guy.
DM thinks (Gee is there both a chance of success and fail?)
DM says: Roll intimidate
action resolves.

my way
Player thinks and says "Can I try to intimidate him with X Y and Z I got a 17
DM says "Ok" then narrates the results...

The difference in "your way" and "my way" is who determines uncertainty. And that I suspect is what changes how we each view other parts of the game. This is something I'd like to explore further, just maybe not in this thread.

 

[MostlyDm]

In your game, do players "use skills?" By that I mean do they say something like "I roll an Intimidate against that guard..." or "I intimidate the guard..." followed by an unsolicited roll?

This is a good question that I didn't answer sooner. I'm not sure how to answer it.

In a sense my players definitely might initiate a roll. They wouldn't start the conversation that way though. They would state their action or speak their dialogue. Upon its conclusion, there's a good chance they might follow it up with "want an athletics check?" Or even "only a 12 on deception for that lie I just told, for what it's worth."

In a sense I think this is just assuming I'm going to ask and trying to be proactive. If I don't feel a check was necessary, that's fine... I might say "not needed, the door unsticks easily as soon as you apply some proper muscle to it." Or "doesn't matter, as soon as the guard sees your coin he stops paying attention and let's you pass."

Or I might say neither, let the roll stand, and continue narration based on the auto-success/failure that was going to occur.

Not sure where this would fall into the dichotomy you're trying to illuminate.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The difference in "your way" and "my way" is who determines uncertainty. And that I suspect is what changes how we each view other parts of the game. This is something I'd like to explore further, just maybe not in this thread.

I consider my players as equals in all ways...

 

[iserith]

This is a good question that I didn't answer sooner. I'm not sure how to answer it.

In a sense my players definitely might initiate a roll. They wouldn't start the conversation that way though. They would state their action or speak their dialogue. Upon its conclusion, there's a good chance they might follow it up with "want an athletics check?" Or even "only a 12 on deception for that lie I just told, for what it's worth."

In a sense I think this is just assuming I'm going to ask and trying to be proactive. If I don't feel a check was necessary, that's fine... I might say "not needed, the door unsticks easily as soon as you apply some proper muscle to it." Or "doesn't matter, as soon as the guard sees your coin he stops paying attention and let's you pass."

Or I might say neither, let the roll stand, and continue narration based on the auto-success/failure that was going to occur.

Not sure where this would fall into the dichotomy you're trying to illuminate.

I'd put that in the category of players requesting to make rolls or "pushing" rolls as I sometimes call it.

 

[iserith]

I consider my players as equals in all ways...

As do I. We just have different roles to play in the game. In mine, the DM determines uncertainty as part of the role. In yours, the players do this by making unsolicited checks.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

As do I. We just have different roles to play in the game. In mine, the DM determines uncertainty as part of the role. In yours, the players do this by making unsolicited checks.

in mine it is in a group environment. Anyone can ask anything they want and anyone can use things on there character sheets when ever the rules allow. In yours your say is final and people can't even ask you simple quastions without being told to take actions in game. The difference is that my group is all about open communication and making game the best togather, no one cares witch of the 5 or 6 of us comes up with something...

I also let them correct me on rules. A few weeks ago I said "everyone make a wisdom save..." and one of my players said "Um is it to see through the illusion, because that should be int not wis..." I thanked him and said he was right... just last week (I know not D&D but still and RPG) in Mage the story teller told me he hit me for 10 lethal, and to roll to soak. I told him 'no, that would be agg and I'm dead" and I was right the type of damage he ment to throw was lethal (and me being a ghoul mage could maybe survive that) he had used the wrong thing though... and killed me out right.