Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8485068" data-attributes="member: 18">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).</blockquote>

Verification