D&D 5E Should Intuition be a skill/ability?

[plisnithus8]

So in other words, if DMs and players are looking to have "peak dramatic moments" in their games, nobody actually needs to do what you're advocating.

If by "in other words" you mean taking my words to mean not what I said, then yes.
I said it is additive.

I certainly would not "roll an Intimidation check for the monster" because there is no uncertainty as to the outcome since the player always decides how the character reacts which means the prerequisite for the ability check was not met in the first place.

As I mentioned when such a roll would take place, it would be to give the players an idea of how powerful the skill is and add the randomness that dice rolling brings to game. It gives a DM who may not have a certain skill set to quantify an experience in order to convey meaning.

What the DM is doing in your example above, when you boil it down, is putting social pressure on the player to respond in a way that is in line with the description. The DM may not even realize this is what is occurring. You may say the player can do as he or she likes, but if the player doesn't react within a range of options that the DM's description suggests is appropriate, then it just looks weird and out of place in front of everyone at the table. Players who don't want to seem like they are doing something weird or out of place in front of other people will therefore modify their reaction to be in line with what the DM said their characters are feeling. It's a bit of DM manipulation.

Sure DM's could use things to manipulate players. Yes, many tools of the game could do that.
But this is a social game. It's about reacting to each other and playing a role and responding to stimuli.
Everyone at the table has social pressures. Each PC and NPC have these. Already.
Stating that someone has a moment of fight or flight response to something doesn't suggest appropriate responses. Everyone would have different responses and different expectations for others.
I have no idea where you are going with the "Players who don't want to seem like they are doing something weird or out of place in front of other people will therefore modify their reaction" -- they either do something weird or not; they are in front of other people, everyone knows their PC is standing in front of a demon lord.

Further, if I'm playing my fighter who has a personality trait of "I can stare down a hell hound without flinching" (from the Soldier background) and you tell me my character feels queasy about a rotten corpse (to build on your example upthread), you have done me a disservice in my view.

First of all, feeling queasy because of the smell of a corpse is not the same as flinching at a dangerous beast. Strong smells, strong alcohol, and many other things in the game can effect how a creature feels. Some have built-in mechanics (like a stench cow) and others don't. Some I wouldn't use mechanics at all but would describe how they feel.
Also, that trait, in my opinion is metaphorical, not mechanical. If the hell hound had a mechanic to make creatures flinch, I wouldn't expect a DM to say that the fighter is immune to it because he selected a certain trait.
Second, someone who is brave isn't someone that doesn't feel fear; they just usually don't react to it in the way most people do. They feel something, but act in opposition to that feeling. They feel their stomach begin to become queasy but are able to almost immediately steady themselves so that they don't react by flinching.

"The books may not advocate for it directly (but certainly don't prohibit it), but it seems the pendulum is swinging back in that direction, especially with the popularity of streamed games (many from officially or semi-officially sanctioned by WotC) that use this technique and new players wanting to play in that style."

I would suggest they need to take a harder look at DMs telling players what their characters think and feel and how they act. Especially since, as has been shown, it's totally unnecessary and can lead to problems at the table.

The approach I was talking about in what you quoted related to "yes and," not about the DM's describing feelings.

There are innumerable unnecessary pieces to the game that can cause problems. I doubt this forum would exist if that were the case. Let’s get rid of XP: it causes too much killing and is unnecessary with benchmark leveling. Let’s get rid of Race because it can be interpreted in ways that make people uncomfortable; it’s unnecessary when we could just use Species.

 

[iserith]

If by "in other words" you mean taking my words to mean not what I said, then yes.
I said it is additive.

It adds risk for DM-player conflict, yes. And "peak dramatic moments" can happen without it. I'm still not seeing an upside here.

As I mentioned when such a roll would take place, it would be to give the players an idea of how powerful the skill is and add the randomness that dice rolling brings to game. It gives a DM who may not have a certain skill set to quantify an experience in order to convey meaning.

Which only serves to bolster my position that certain techniques, including the one you're advocating, are just attempts at solutions to an underlying issue without addressing the underlying issue. In this case, the DM not having "a certain skill set," which could otherwise be addressed by working on that. Like any skill, that path to improvement is doing it.

Sure DM's could use things to manipulate players. Yes, many tools of the game could do that.
But this is a social game. It's about reacting to each other and playing a role and responding to stimuli.
Everyone at the table has social pressures. Each PC and NPC have these. Already.
Stating that someone has a moment of fight or flight response to something doesn't suggest appropriate responses. Everyone would have different responses and different expectations for others.
I have no idea where you are going with the "Players who don't want to seem like they are doing something weird or out of place in front of other people will therefore modify their reaction" -- they either do something weird or not; they are in front of other people, everyone knows their PC is standing in front of a demon lord.

I'll try again: If the DM tells a player that his or her character feels fear (excepting magical compulsion or the like), the player is now put in the position to either go along with that or object to the DM's imposition on the player's character. You can imagine that some players are just going to go along with it so as not to create awkwardness at the table. This is a form of social manipulation at the metagame level that the DM may not even realize he or she is doing. They probably just like the results they get without understanding what this is doing to some players.

First of all, feeling queasy because of the smell of a corpse is not the same as flinching at a dangerous beast. Strong smells, strong alcohol, and many other things in the game can effect how a creature feels. Some have built-in mechanics (like a stench cow) and others don't. Some I wouldn't use mechanics at all but would describe how they feel.
Also, that trait, in my opinion is metaphorical, not mechanical. If the hell hound had a mechanic to make creatures flinch, I wouldn't expect a DM to say that the fighter is immune to it because he selected a certain trait.
Second, someone who is brave isn't someone that doesn't feel fear; they just usually don't react to it in the way most people do. They feel something, but act in opposition to that feeling. They feel their stomach begin to become queasy but are able to almost immediately steady themselves so that they don't react by flinching.

This looks to me like more self-justification and post-hoc reasoning. There's either a mechanical fear effect (for example) or there's not. If there isn't, then the player gets to decide the reaction to stimuli, not the DM. You might get a player to go along with an assertion that his or her character feels a certain way via the aforementioned social pressure or the player might happen to agree with you in that instance, but some players will object. That sort of conflict is not desirable in my opinion and is completely avoidable by the DM staying in his or her lane. With so much control over the game as is, why on earth would the DM want to assert more control over the PCs?

The approach I was talking about in what you quoted related to "yes and," not about the DM's describing feelings.

There are innumerable unnecessary pieces to the game that can cause problems. I doubt this forum would exist if that were the case. Let’s get rid of XP: it causes too much killing and is unnecessary with benchmark leveling. Let’s get rid of Race because it can be interpreted in ways that make people uncomfortable; it’s unnecessary when we could just use Species.

Which are mechanical things that one would expect can be changed in D&D. It's a long-held tradition to hack the game in this way. But telling a player what his or her character's feelings are about something? That goes to very foundation of how to play the game as outlined by the rules to no apparent upside, except for a DM who is trying to push the game in certain directions or is covering over an underlying issue.

Look, I know I'm not going to convince you that what you're advocating is problematic. I knew that from the first post when you tried to justify the approach you are using. So everything I'm writing is really for other people who are doing this or are playing in games with a DM that uses this approach or people who could use a heads up about how ubiquitous this approach seems to be at present (at least in my experience). To them I say: The DM doesn't have to do this and arguably shouldn't given the downsides. Further I challenge those who do this to stop, give the players space to decide this for themselves without the DM saying anything about it, and see what happens. And if you're a player in such a game, ask the DM to respect your agency and not do this anymore, and see what happens. I'd be interested in hearing the results.

 

[plisnithus8]

everything I'm writing is really for other people who are doing this or are playing in games with a DM that uses this approach or people who could use a heads up about how ubiquitous this approach seems to be at present (at least in my experience). To them I say: The DM doesn't have to do this and arguably shouldn't given the downsides. Further I challenge those who do this to stop, give the players space to decide this for themselves without the DM saying anything about it, and see what happens. And if you're a player in such a game, ask the DM to respect your agency and not do this anymore, and see what happens. I'd be interested in hearing the results.

Your response to the DM is to say practice describing to get better, but in response to potential issues of describing feelings is stop using that tool immediately. It works both ways.

I challenge others to try both ways and work on making both useful.

 

[Ashrym]

Well, I have pointed out twice that this is at the player's request, so this really isn't intruding on the player's role.

Bard flubs his check to identify freaking Oberon, the Green Knight, whom the party came upon in the middle of the woods. Oberon isn't hostile, but wants to challenge one of the knights to a joust, for funsies.

Paladin: "What's my gut feeling on this guy?"

DM (rolls): "His body language is relaxed, even though he is alone faced with a company of unknown soldiers. He seems pretty powerful. Your gut is telling you handle with care."

****
Party defeated the BBEG's second-in-command, who was sent to deal with them accompanied by a pair of stone golems. The party was forced to take a short rest after the battle though, and is about to step through a portal.

Paladin: "Hold up, guys. Is my gut telling me anything?"
DM (rolls): "It's been about an hour since you fought XXXX. If you were in the BBEG's shoes, you probably would have expected XXXX to have reported back by now, so you figure that the BBEG knows you're coming."

Seems like the paladin is trying to work sense motive in the scenario.

 

[iserith]

Your response to the DM is to say practice describing to get better, but in response to potential issues of describing feelings is stop using that tool immediately. It works both ways.

It really doesn't. Describing the environment does not include describing the PCs' feelings. The former is the DM's role. The latter is the players' role. A DM who thinks he or she needs to work on improving descriptions of the environment does not need to work on describing feelings. That's for the players to do.

 

[Bawylie]

It really doesn't. Describing the environment does not include describing the PCs' feelings. The former is the DM's role. The latter is the players' role. A DM who thinks he or she needs to work on improving descriptions of the environment does not need to work on describing feelings. That's for the players to do.

I agree. And I think the DMG hasn’t done a good enough job in laying out what the DM is actually supposed to describe in step 1 or 3 of the basic play loop. It’s damn vague. Directionless.

Consequently we see a lot of vague and directionless setup. Too many words saying too little and you’re like “finally, a goblin. I attack.” Or worse there’s no goblin and you’re left asking your DM “can I get a sense of what I’m supposed to DO here?” In the form of endless insight or gut checks. Or questions.

 

[iserith]

I agree. And I think the DMG hasn’t done a good enough job in laying out what the DM is actually supposed to describe in step 1 or 3 of the basic play loop. It’s damn vague. Directionless.

Consequently we see a lot of vague and directionless setup. Too many words saying too little and you’re like “finally, a goblin. I attack.” Or worse there’s no goblin and you’re left asking your DM “can I get a sense of what I’m supposed to DO here?” In the form of endless insight or gut checks. Or questions.

To be fair, nobody actually reads the DMG anyway, especially not experienced DMs. They know everything there is to know already from watching YouTube videos.

 

[plisnithus8]

It really doesn't. Describing the environment does not include describing the PCs' feelings. The former is the DM's role. The latter is the players' role. A DM who thinks he or she needs to work on improving descriptions of the environment does not need to work on describing feelings. That's for the players to do.

You keep repeating your interpretations of the way the roles of DM and player have to be. You keep warning me about problems in my game that don’t exist.
You keep challenging people to try things your way while asking them to trust you that they should never try mine.
You keep telling me about the things I keep doing.
I think we are both just repeating our same arguments.
Thanks again for the discourse. Peace