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

[Ovinomancer]

Not at all. I'm happy the poster has rejoined the discussion considering previous comments.

I'm beginning to think that you may be tone deaf. When you anger someone enough to say that they're done with you, that statement is almost always made in haste and emotion, and the person will almost always return. However, making a post that does nothing but note their return against what they said is guaranteed to continue to upset that person -- no matter how you may intend it, it's one of those things it's just a jerk move no matter what. If you intend to be a jerk, as most people that say 'welcome back' to a poster that has said they're leaving are, that's fine, the statement matches the intent. In which case my comment that it's unnecessary snark, as it in no way improves the conversation, is spot on. If, however, you really do wish to be nice, it's far better to NOT say anything, ignore that the person ever said they were leaving, and continue on as if nothing happened. You can send them a PM explaining yourself in detail if you'd like. Because there's just about no way to make that post, especially without any additional content, and not come off as a jerk looking to poke someone.

My advice, if you don't intend to be a jerk, abandon this line of statement. There is no benefit to saying this, only downside.

 

[iserith]

I'm beginning to think that you may be tone deaf. When you anger someone enough to say that they're done with you, that statement is almost always made in haste and emotion, and the person will almost always return. However, making a post that does nothing but note their return against what they said is guaranteed to continue to upset that person -- no matter how you may intend it, it's one of those things it's just a jerk move no matter what. If you intend to be a jerk, as most people that say 'welcome back' to a poster that has said they're leaving are, that's fine, the statement matches the intent. In which case my comment that it's unnecessary snark, as it in no way improves the conversation, is spot on. If, however, you really do wish to be nice, it's far better to NOT say anything, ignore that the person ever said they were leaving, and continue on as if nothing happened. You can send them a PM explaining yourself in detail if you'd like. Because there's just about no way to make that post, especially without any additional content, and not come off as a jerk looking to poke someone.

My advice, if you don't intend to be a jerk, abandon this line of statement. There is no benefit to saying this, only downside.

You know, I only very rarely do this, but given these repeated statements where you read into my tone an agenda I do not have, then try to instruct me on how to post, I'm going to go ahead and ignore you because this is not productive discourse. It's focusing on tone to avoid hearing the content, a regrettable tactic. I'm not going to keep playing that game.

I was legitimately concerned about @GMforPowergamers exit from the discussion given how it ended, legitimately pleased to see him or her return to it, and a charitable reading of both my responses to his or her statements in this regard shows that.

Good luck and happy gaming.

 

[Lanliss]

I'm beginning to think that you may be tone deaf. When you anger someone enough to say that they're done with you, that statement is almost always made in haste and emotion, and the person will almost always return. However, making a post that does nothing but note their return against what they said is guaranteed to continue to upset that person -- no matter how you may intend it, it's one of those things it's just a jerk move no matter what. If you intend to be a jerk, as most people that say 'welcome back' to a poster that has said they're leaving are, that's fine, the statement matches the intent. In which case my comment that it's unnecessary snark, as it in no way improves the conversation, is spot on. If, however, you really do wish to be nice, it's far better to NOT say anything, ignore that the person ever said they were leaving, and continue on as if nothing happened. You can send them a PM explaining yourself in detail if you'd like. Because there's just about no way to make that post, especially without any additional content, and not come off as a jerk looking to poke someone.

My advice, if you don't intend to be a jerk, abandon this line of statement. There is no benefit to saying this, only downside.

I think this may be an issue of looking for insult. I did not see anything wrong with his statement, possibly because I never try to read something with a tone on the internet. Text is so bad at conveying tone that it is just looking for an argument where there isn't one.

 

[Ovinomancer]

in general, a player character does whatever the player wants them to do, even if it doesn't make much sense. You can have situations where skill checks mimic fear, charm, detect lies, and invisibility, for example, but you have to tread that tight rope carefully.

A skill challenge of dice vs dice is a terrible idea in 5th edition. We roll d20s, and unlike AD&D, we don't have a saturation effect of rolling below 3-18 with 14 being average (70% success) or the 3e +12-16 to the die roll. Skill checks also grossly favor only a handful of classes in 5e.

So instead, I propose examining the DC 5-30 table, and then consulting stats. In CP2020, they took your 1-10 stat, multiplied by 2.5 and that became the target number to fiddle with people with things like bribe, intimidation, torture, or seduction.
Attribute bonuses for most characters is -5 to +5. Add 5, multiply by 2.5 round up, then add 5 again if the player doesn't want to comply, because we roll d20s, not d10s. Social Interaction Stat DC table:

Indifferent. . .Resist. . .Stat Mod
8 .. . . . . . . . . 13. . . .-2 (stat of 6-7)
10. . . . . . . . . 15. . . .-1 (stat of 8-9)
13. . . . . . . . . 18. . . . 0 (10-11)
15. . . . . . . . . 20. . . +1 (12-13)
18. . . . . . . . . 23. . . +2 (14-15)
20. . . . . . . . . 25. . . +3 (16-17)
23. . . . . . . . . 28. . . +4 (18-19)
25. . . . . . . . . 30. . . +5 (20-21)

Typically, 5e has people rolling d20+2-5 unskilled, d20 +4-11 skilled, and d20+6-17 when a specialized mechanic is in place. The average unskilled check will frequently clear 13-15, the skilled check will often clear 20, and the specialist will frequently clear 23.

Those frequencies are too high to incorporate low DCs like 12 or 15 for social interaction. Otherwise a bum on the street could walk up to the guards of a castle "surrender" die roll 13. "ok". Walks forward to the magistrate "gimme all ur magic items" die roll total 16 "sure, here ya go". Walks up to kings personal guard " you all suck.. fall on your swords" DM rules disadvantage applies... die rolls 8 and 14, plus 7 from skill. "that's a great idea, never liked living anyway". Gets to king "uh, yeah, that's a great crown. Gimme the crown and your kingdom" Die roll 18...

Methinks we need better structured social DCs for skills, and probably a table of modifiers. I was just in a game where half the party wiped because the DM stuck two adult dragons in a trap door in a level 3 game - the damage was so high even with a saving throw we wiped. I asked him why he sent an impossible scenario at us, he replied "Fun!" and smiled.

I'm confused as to where you think that it would be trivial to convince guards to surrender. Diplomacy can only get people to do things that they would be willing to do -- it's not magical compulsion, there are reasonable limits. A regular bum could never talk a guard into surrendering. However, a bum that used to be the best actor in the kingdom, armed with specific information about the guard, could do so. I would put the DC of convincing a guard to surrender to be extremely difficult, and imply disadvantage because the guard will likely be hostile to the bum (they could be indifferent).

Now, a bum could intimidate the guard, maybe easily, and get by, but as soon as the bum is out of sight the guards is going to ring the alarm and there goes that plan.

My point being if you think DMs are going to be reliably competent with their decision making, you are sadly mistaken. RAI is best left for DMs who understand the principles behind RAW before going into fiat decision making on the fly, especially in social interaction where one bad die roll leads to events where your players will quit.

You are aware that DM reliability and competence cuts against Iserth and your preferences as well, yes? Also, the claim that some DMs are better at deciphering RAI, and only they should do so, kinda smacks of elitist, no?

 

[Imaculata]

My advice, if you don't intend to be a jerk, abandon this line of statement. There is no benefit to saying this, only downside.

Alternatively, you could try to not automatically assume that someone is being a jerk, or being snarky. Especially when it is pretty clear that Iserith enjoys a good discussion. At least, that is how I interpreted it.

I would put the DC of convincing a guard to surrender to be extremely difficult, and imply disadvantage because the guard will likely be hostile to the bum (they could be indifferent).

Now, a bum could intimidate the guard, maybe easily, and get by, but as soon as the bum is out of sight the guards is going to ring the alarm and there goes that plan.

If it is completely unrealistic that a guard would surrender in the given scenario, then I would simply rule that the attempt fails, no roll needed. The player had better have a very good plan or story in order to make it seem conceivable for the guards to just throw down their arms. Only when I as a DM think that it 'could' work, I make my players roll for it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think this may be an issue of looking for insult. I did not see anything wrong with his statement, possibly because I never try to read something with a tone on the internet. Text is so bad at conveying tone that it is just looking for an argument where there isn't one.

It's easy to misconstrue, especially by someone that you've already cheesed off with your posting. My suggestion was merely that such things be avoided due to their ease of misinterpretation. That there's no benefit to saying it, only downside.

I'm happy to be wrong, and glad that you didn't take offense to it. I didn't take offense to it, either. I haven't taken offense to anything Iserth has said. I have a pet peeve about publicly announcing ignores, but that's not offense, it's just general dislike of that particular passive aggressive move. If you decide to ignore someone, just ignore them. Announcing it is just you getting in the last word while telling everyone what you think of the other person. It's lame.

 

[Lanliss]

It's easy to misconstrue, especially by someone that you've already cheesed off with your posting. My suggestion was merely that such things be avoided due to their ease of misinterpretation. That there's no benefit to saying it, only downside.

I'm happy to be wrong, and glad that you didn't take offense to it. I didn't take offense to it, either. I haven't taken offense to anything Iserth has said. I have a pet peeve about publicly announcing ignores, but that's not offense, it's just general dislike of that particular passive aggressive move. If you decide to ignore someone, just ignore them. Announcing it is just you getting in the last word while telling everyone what you think of the other person. It's lame.

Assuming he meant it as he said, being genuinely happy about the return of his debate buddy, I would understand him letting people know about his happiness. Sometimes it is difficult to realize that something could cause offense, which makes it fine to put up. Another nasty side effect of text not conveying tone.

For instance, I just read over this and realized it could easily be the start of an argument. I will put it up anyway, but with a warning that my tone is not meant to be argumentative or insulting to you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Alternatively, you could try to not automatically assume that someone is being a jerk, or being snarky. Especially when it is pretty clear that Iserith enjoys a good discussion. At least, that is how I interpreted it.

You agree with him. If you don't agree with him, his posts have a tone of implied superiority. Others have commented on it beside me and GM, so I don't think I'm entirely crazy, here. I may be, though. Do you know any good doctors?

If it is completely unrealistic that a guard would surrender in the given scenario, then I would simply rule that the attempt fails, no roll needed. The player had better have a very good plan or story in order to make is seem conceivable for the guards to just throw down their arms. Only when I as a DM think that it 'could' work, I make my players roll for it.

Same, I tend to avoid rolls for things that are routine or impossible. Very difficult we can do right now, but impossible will take a day of preparation (and a good story).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Assuming he meant it as he said, being genuinely happy about the return of his debate buddy, I would understand him letting people know about his happiness. Sometimes it is difficult to realize that something could cause offense, which makes it fine to put up. Another nasty side effect of text not conveying tone.

For instance, I just read over this and realized it could easily be the start of an argument. I will put it up anyway, but with a warning that my tone is not meant to be argumentative or insulting to you.

No sweat. I know I can be abrasive and it's still hard to stop and reconsider sometimes. Good gaming!

 

[Ovinomancer]

DM elitist? I recommend you check out Master of the Game, by G. Gygax, 1989.

Being a DM is like winning a marathon. Anyone can do it...except all those people who can't.

As soon as you said 'I would do this' you were demonstrating a level of competency not everyone shares.
​

Then this is a pretty trivial point. "Some people aren't capable of running a consistent game" is trivially true. It doesn't require that the rules be changed to accommodate such people.

EDIT: and, if someone did run that game, where beggars can convince kingdoms to hand over the keys on a DC 12 diplomacy check, and the DM and players enjoy that game, I'm not going to say they're wrong. I wouldn't play that way, but fun's the objective, and if they achieve it then the rules are perfect for them.