D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[clearstream]

It comes back to a simple question. At Kim's table, Kim and all of their players have agreed that occasionally an NPC can use persuasion or intimidation to determine a PC's thoughts and actions.

According to the OP, those players are no longer role playing and can no longer be said to be playing the game.

While I'm not sure I'd want to play at Kim's table, saying that they are no longer playing the game is one true wayism to me.

It may be that some picture RP|G where we can as well picture RPG or as I do RP^G. The pipe symbol indicates a division, RP on one side, G on the other. The caret indicates increase by a power.

If one has RP|G in mind, then one might feel forced to exclude G impinging ones RP. As many have asked, why do that in some places and not others?

 

[HammerMan]

Exactly! The fallacy is an attempt to reductio Story Game style play by ignoring its cardinal characteristic, which is that everything follows from the fiction! If the game is played AS INTENDED, certainly in the case of 4e, I wouldn't even consider this a valid action declaration unless it was fictionally plausible. Dungeon World would likewise simply treat it as an inconsequential move, and the GM would likely respond with a hard move of their own, "Unfortunately the carnivorous tree has now grasped you in its claw-like branches..."

where I agree it is nonsense, it is as much nonsense as "I want to know the true name of the wizard that hired you" being an intimidate check that if you make the kobold A)automatically knows the true name and not a fake one, and B) will talk when intimidated. I made the most ridiculas analogy I could because in the other thread when I made (a real example that happened to me as a PC) everyone dismissed it.

Real example: we came across a barred door, we needed to get through it. My Fighter/barbarian was already annoyed from things taking to long so I had him walk up and rip it off the wall/door. I even declarer "I'm just going to rip it off so we can get in" the DM had me roll Str/athletics, I rolled high enough and ripped it off the wall/door... and still couldn't open the door. Why you ask, because it had also a physical lock and a magical seal.

Now I was told that either the DM should(if following the rules) have ruled "automatic failure" becuse I couldn't open the door anyway, or "automatic success" you rip it off but that doesn't help. I was told that is becuse in 5e rolls are binary pass/fail and only on things that have consequences and uncertainty when taking the goal into mind. Since athletics can not open the door it is not uncertain.

 

[HammerMan]

The DMG notes that "You can also lean on the other players to help you with [...] world-building." pg. 4

Page 26 of the DMG talks about "Involving the Characters" and coming up with npcs and other things in the characters background.

@Maxperson here someone found that rule/guidance you wanted.

 

[HammerMan]

So in the case of a Bard persuading a King, the DM's job is to, as fairly as possible, assess the likelihood of success. And that involves knowing their NPCs, what their motivations and personality and foibles are like, to determine that possibility. In other words, the DM is roleplaying the NPC. It is roleplaying when they say, "No, sorry, there's no way you're going to persuade him of that." It is roleplaying when they say, "Yes! The King jumps to his feet and agrees!" And it is still roleplaying when they say, "Hmm...that's tricky. Let me see a Charisma roll; you can use either Deception or Persuasion, depending on how you want to play it. 18 or higher and he'll agree."

So in the case of a NPC King persuading a Bard, the Players's job is to, as fairly as possible, assess the likelihood of success. And that involves knowing their PCs, what their motivations and personality and foibles are like, to determine that possibility. In other words, the Player is roleplaying the PC. It is roleplaying when they say, "No, sorry, there's no way you're going to persuade him of that." It is roleplaying when they say, "Yes! The Bard jumps to his feet and agrees!" And it is still roleplaying when they say, "Hmm...that's tricky. Let me see a Charisma roll; you can use either Deception or Persuasion, depending on how you want to play it. 18 or higher and he'll agree."

Again, the Bard didn't do anything to the NPC. The Bard just did something, with the objective of getting the NPC to do something, and the DM determined how the NPC responded to that something. Roleplaying, not mechanics.

just like the PC

EDIT: and I want to point out that in stating goal and approach, the goal...such as 'convince the king to let me marry his heir'...can be mistaken as being the "it" in "do it to the NPC". But the purpose of including the goal is just to avoid misunderstandings and ensure that the DM understands what it is you're trying to accomplish. There's no binding mechanical effect that springs into being with the declaration of the goal. This, by the way, is also @HammerMan's mistake in his example of "I climb the tree to find the cow.")

except you get the "I want to marry the kings daughter." "OKay, he doesn't seem likely to agree what do you do?" "I persuade him by telling him how strong my blood line is what a great hero I am and tell him the tales of the last few games."

"Okay, so roll CHa+persasion at DC 18,"
Bard player rolls a 27 (18+9)
so the DM says "Okay, you have convinced him of what a hero you are and how your blood line would help his, but since he still doesn't want the princesses to marry you, he offers you his niece."

 

[HammerMan]

It comes back to a simple question. At Kim's table, Kim and all of their players have agreed that occasionally an NPC can use persuasion or intimidation to determine a PC's thoughts and actions.

According to the OP, those players are no longer role playing and can no longer be said to be playing the game.

While I'm not sure I'd want to play at Kim's table, saying that they are no longer playing the game is one true wayism to me.

Becky and Ross (both current players 1 current DM, both have DMed) do this all the time. Becky runs some of the best story driven games I have ever played... Ross is hit or miss but tries. You know what they both have in common? They don't like having to use there storyteller skills on trying to persuade, intimidate, or desept PCs, they would rather it be IN GAME narrative driven not OUT OF GAME skill.

I go back and forth so does Kurt, Chris, and Amber. Sometimes to save time, sometimes (I can say for me most times) because the Players through a curve ball and I am not making things up on the fly.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They don't like having to use there storyteller skills on trying to persuade, intimidate, or desept PCs, they would rather it be IN GAME narrative driven not OUT OF GAME skill.

Deceiving PCs is already part of the rules, there's nothing novel about that - if an NPC is lying it's passive Insight vs. their Deception check. So nobody is doing anything surprising there.

Persuasion and Intimidation are a matter of whether the players are going to cooperate or not. I feel like the same strictures apply to DMs as to players here. Generally to roll Persuasion or Intimidation, you're going to need to describe it pretty well, and it's going to need to be plausible given the relative personalities and situations of the characters involved. If you have a PC who has been consistently portrayed as hard-as-nails, has fought dragons and so on, and the NPC is just trying to menace him by looming over him or whatever, it's probably not plausible and the DM should not get to roll. This is usually easier vice-versa because NPCs tend to not have elaborate histories of facing horrifying adversaries in the same way. Likewise, if the DM just wants to "roll Persuasion" without being able to explain how he's convincing the PCs, he should tell himself (or herself) "No", frankly.

Persuasion is the weakest because even with cooperative players, no player is going to believe much from an NPC who the DM is telling them "Persuaded" them of something. And intimidation is unlikely to last long unless the player is really having fun with it.

Of the DMs I play with, 3/4 (including me) don't use Persuasion/Intimidation on PCs much, if at all, but one does, and it's usually fine, but he generally relies on rolling social skills a bit too much anyway, which tends to make situations devolve because D&D doesn't have very clear fail states (it seems binary, but this probably isn't really intended).

 

[HammerMan]

Deceiving PCs is already part of the rules, there's nothing novel about that - if an NPC is lying it's passive Insight vs. their Deception check. So nobody is doing anything surprising there.

well I was harrassed for 70ish pages that NPCs can not use Cha at all... so, um yeah.

Persuasion and Intimidation are a matter of whether the players are going to cooperate or not.

that was literally my third statement in the other thread.

I feel like the same strictures apply to DMs as to players here.

yup

Generally to roll Persuasion or Intimidation, you're going to need to describe it pretty well, and it's going to need to be plausible given the relative personalities and situations of the characters involved.

this is where I disagree, and disagree HARD because someone in the other thread said how they would describe an intimidate in a scenario, and I will tell you that would have broken game in half... at least 2 (most likely 3) of my players would red card on the spot, and at least one would most likely need to take a few minutes off. "describing pretty well" can derail some game entirely.

If you have a PC who has been consistently portrayed as hard-as-nails, has fought dragons and so on, and the NPC is just trying to menace him by looming over him or whatever, it's probably not plausible and the DM should not get to roll.

yeah 100% agree it means the DM and player need to agree on what is and is not possible

This is usually easier vice-versa because NPCs tend to not have elaborate histories of facing horrifying adversaries in the same way. Likewise, if the DM just wants to "roll Persuasion" without being able to explain how he's convincing the PCs, he should tell himself (or herself) "No", frankly.

nope... she or he should explain the scene in as much detail (or as little) as the table agrees to be comfortable with, and then roll and let the player react. If the player reaction is "can't work no" the DM has to take that as much as the player does.

Persuasion is the weakest because even with cooperative players, no player is going to believe much from an NPC who the DM is telling them "Persuaded" them of something. And intimidation is unlikely to last long unless the player is really having fun with it.

I mean it all depends on the buy in

Of the DMs I play with, 3/4 (including me) don't use Persuasion/Intimidation on PCs much, if at all, but one does, and it's usually fine, but he generally relies on rolling social skills a bit too much anyway, which tends to make situations devolve because D&D doesn't have very clear fail states (it seems binary, but this probably isn't really intended).

yeah even the 2 DMs that use it the most still use it as a corner case. It's not like every scene of every session of every campaign has a chance to use Cha skills, let alone that both the DM and players want to.... it is a tool set for a corner case, not the default every game thing

 

[Ruin Explorer]

nope... she or he should explain the scene in as much detail (or as little) as the table agrees to be comfortable with, and then roll and let the player react. If the player reaction is "can't work no" the DM has to take that as much as the player does.

I don't get how this is different from what I said lol.

 

[HammerMan]

I don't get how this is different from what I said lol.

you said "Generally to roll Persuasion or Intimidation, you're going to need to describe it pretty well, and it's going to need to be plausible given the relative personalities and situations of the characters involved."
I disagree with "you're going to need to describe it pretty well"

you cna (and I have seen both players and DMs) short hand it to "I want to intimidate ______" or "I want to Seduce ________" with 0 details no idea what they will say or do in game to accomplish it, just an action and wanting to use CHa or Cha+skill....

 

[iserith]

Deceiving PCs is already part of the rules, there's nothing novel about that - if an NPC is lying it's passive Insight vs. their Deception check. So nobody is doing anything surprising there.

Notably, a player determines what the character thinks about the NPC's lie, even if the DM is rolling a Charisma (Deception) check for the NPC and that is higher than the character's passive Wisdom (Insight). All it means is the PC couldn't pick up any body language, speech habits, or mannerisms that suggest the NPC is lying. The player still portrays the character any way they prefer - the PC believes the lie, doesn't know what to think about the lie, definitely doesn't believe the lie but doesn't have any proof, or whatever the player wants. (Any of those responses might be worth of Inspiration if it plays to a personal characteristic.) To this end, it's better in my view to just have the PC roll Wisdom (Insight) as a contest against the NPC's Charisma (Deception) or a set DC. This put it in the hands of the player to declare the action which is then resolved as normal.

There's also no good reason in my view to roll Charisma (Intimidation) or Charisma (Persuasion) checks for an NPC either as it pertains to PCs. The player says whether the character is intimidated or persuaded anyway. The only work the roll is doing is that of acting as weighted dice to inform the DM's description like rolling for inconsequential weather, which are unnecessary in my view. (Though I do roll for weather in some games!) I can just say that the orc is trying intimidate the PCs and how (or the merchant is trying to persuade the PCs and how), then ask "What do you do?" It's not like the NPC can "use Intimidate" or "use Persuasion" on the PCs like a button to push to make them do something. The player decides.