Skills used by players on other players.

[Oofta]

Actually, i would say what you are describing is a failed persuasion check - taking the wrong approach, directly challenging the belief.

The same studies found that while the counter evidence cases create the digging on heels, the finding common ground and more sidereal "common ground" did work.
So you might not be able to directly attack their big position directly but can get them to come to agreement on say a good hunting policy.

Same way folks can all agree on the individual elements of complex laws but be against it whencertain politicians name is on it - you work to the solo agreements.

Not unlike choosing to not frontal assault the castle but work a deal with a sude gate guard.

That said, yes, "can i be convinced of x" can be an absolute "no" - especially if the context is a single conversation or worse, a quick statement.

To me, one of the keys to skill use is time... How long are you going to work at it?

Want to seduce - takes time.
Want to get the king to like you - takes multiple things not just one quick line.

GM can choose the time requirement for various tasks that make sense... Nothing says Persuasion is always a six second task.

As a DM I certainly allow actions and skill checks to sway NPC attitudes, especially if it's over the course of time. In one of my last campaigns, I had the group start out as young kids. They interacted with a group of bullies but realized that one of them was being physically abused by their father (one of those throw-away-spur-of-the-moment comments on my part) and took pity on them. Didn't help them at that time, in fact it probably made things worse. But over the course of the years of campaign they always went out of their way to try to persuade the NPC through words and deeds that they weren't destined to become the force of evil their father wanted them to be. Eventually it worked. Screwed up a major plot point I had initially planned, but the NPC became an ally.

So yes the PCs can influence an NPC, especially over time. But in this case, it's because I kept an open mind on the issue and I try to see the world from the NPC's perspective. I decided as a DM that there was a chance of the NPC being influenced. Had the NPC been the physical incarnation of a demon, it would not have worked.

All I can say is that if a DM starts telling me what my character thinks or how they behave, I will object. If it's more than just a one time thing I'll find a new DM. Based on the reactions of my players when I miscommunicate and they think I'm telling them how they think or behave I'd say it's pretty common. Many if not most people I've played with don't want the DM (or other players) to run their characters.

Case in point: I don't think I can be convinced that character A should decide what character B thinks no matter how many postings there are on this thread, no matter how well the postings are written.

 

[Guest 6801328]

This differs from being grappled, say, where the PC could still say that and attempt to walk away only to fail automatically. This is saying that the PC cannot even contemplate such actions and the player is so constrained in action declarations.

This is a really excellent way of explaining the difference.

When you are grappled you are not compelled to do anything (i.e., there is no loss of agency) but there are certain actions that, if you try them...and you can try them if you really want to...the DM can point to a very specific rule that says you fail.

When you have "been persuaded" and your DM says you cannot take such-and-such course of action:
1) He is saying you can't even try.
2) There is no rule to back him up. There is no Persuaded condition.

I'll also add that if you are grappled you can try to break free every turn, and there are rules for that, too. For those of you espousing hard effects of Persuade...is it permanent? Are the targets aware they have been persuaded and can they make Wisdom saves each round to break free? When they do, do they have to be hostile to the caster? (Ok, I'm getting a little bit farcical here...)

 

[5ekyu]

As a DM I certainly allow actions and skill checks to sway NPC attitudes, especially if it's over the course of time. In one of my last campaigns, I had the group start out as young kids. They interacted with a group of bullies but realized that one of them was being physically abused by their father (one of those throw-away-spur-of-the-moment comments on my part) and took pity on them. Didn't help them at that time, in fact it probably made things worse. But over the course of the years of campaign they always went out of their way to try to persuade the NPC through words and deeds that they weren't destined to become the force of evil their father wanted them to be. Eventually it worked. Screwed up a major plot point I had initially planned, but the NPC became an ally.

So yes the PCs can influence an NPC, especially over time. But in this case, it's because I kept an open mind on the issue and I try to see the world from the NPC's perspective. I decided as a DM that there was a chance of the NPC being influenced. Had the NPC been the physical incarnation of a demon, it would not have worked.

All I can say is that if a DM starts telling me what my character thinks or how they behave, I will object. If it's more than just a one time thing I'll find a new DM. Based on the reactions of my players when I miscommunicate and they think I'm telling them how they think or behave I'd say it's pretty common. Many if not most people I've played with don't want the DM (or other players) to run their characters.

Case in point: I don't think I can be convinced that character A should decide what character B thinks no matter how many postings there are on this thread, no matter how well the postings are written.

I agree on the negative reaction to a GM telling players how their characters think or (emotionally) feel. Barring certain defined conditions and causes, it's pretty not done in my games.

I dont however carry this to the extreme some do of letting that cross over into what I consider the area of description and perception and just simple common language use for ease of play.

For example, if one of my PCs succeeds at noticing another character's deception, we dont tip-toe, verbal ballet on eggshells around the bush with painstaking descriptions of which nervous ticks, looks left not right, pauses too long at... etc , we just say "he seems to be lying" and add in details that matter and add distinctiveness and interest.
Everyone in my group knows that is no more mind-conttol, stolen player agency than saying "it's a foul odor" is saying "you have to have your character dislike that smell and act like it or I will get fussy over your crappy tole playing."

It's just descriptive shorthand. After all, you can like and even trust someone you know to be not being honest, as you see fit.

I even allow the player to choose to take disad on the insight check if they feel appropriate.

Basically, I tend to treat the described results of what are the described cases where insight might be an appropriate proficiency as perception (general term) of clues, not some self-mind-control landmine of linguistics.

 

[Bawylie]

I agree on the negative reaction to a GM telling players how their characters think or (emotionally) feel. Barring certain defined conditions and causes, it's pretty not done in my games.

I dont however carry this to the extreme some do of letting that cross over into what I consider the area of description and perception and just simple common language use for ease of play.

For example, if one of my PCs succeeds at noticing another character's deception, we dont tip-toe, verbal ballet on eggshells around the bush with painstaking descriptions of which nervous ticks, looks left not right, pauses too long at... etc , we just say "he seems to be lying" and add in details that matter and add distinctiveness and interest.
Everyone in my group knows that is no more mind-conttol, stolen player agency than saying "it's a foul odor" is saying "you have to have your character dislike that smell and act like it or I will get fussy over your crappy tole playing."

It's just descriptive shorthand. After all, you can like and even trust someone you know to be not being honest, as you see fit.

I even allow the player to choose to take disad on the insight check if they feel appropriate.

Basically, I tend to treat the described results of what are the described cases where insight might be an appropriate proficiency as perception (general term) of clues, not some self-mind-control landmine of linguistics.

D&D has a couple of status conditions that are worth considering.

Fear and Charm come to mind. You might, as a DM, decide to permit skill checks to impose those conditions. That might be very interesting.

But if you were to do that, I think it would be better to stay within the confines of the condition rather than blanket constraints on how the player feels, thinks, and acts.

I think I might try that out and see how it plays. I’ve got reservations about it, but there might be something there.

 

[Ratskinner]

But, you just described limiting the player options just as I said happens. The PC reaction cannot be "whatever, I ignore them and do what I want." This differs from being grappled, say, where the PC could still say that and attempt to walk away only to fail automatically. This is saying that the PC cannot even contemplate such actions and the player is so constrained in action declarations.

I don't see much of a distinction between "fail automatically" and "can't try". However, the persuaded PC might act however they want, but they might then deal with guilt and social or divine consequences to acting against their conscience.

That said, it's not horrible that you do so. I disagree, but I don't play at your table. Again, I'm going to make the strongest points possible, as I did when I played almost exactly like you (I distinctly recall making the argument above almost verbatim).

No problem. I mean, we're on the internet talking about pretending to be elves.

I discovered that, for me and my table at least, the game git better when I stopped trying to police my PCs. I found I was running NPC persuasion as a plot device to chivvy around my players. Effectively, it was pretty blatant use of DM force. So, I've stopped. If the players don't believe the NPC or aren't persuaded, great! The story will now move in that direction. I don't need to force the players because I don't have a preset story that needs to happen. This isn't to say that not agreeing can't have horrible consequences, but those will at least be the choice of the players, not me.

I'm specifically addressing the PvP situation. NPCs in our game don't frequently walk up to the PCs to make Persuasion checks on them (at least not when I'm GMing). Generally, the PCs aren't worth that kind of effort within an NPCs plan. Now, there is the not-so-occasional dishonest NPC. I don't actually usually play with too much of a preconceived plotline, but I do have my NPCs have plots and motivations of their own. Those might include or make use of deceiving or persuading the PCs of something. (Then again, my masterminds are often smart enough to have backup plans and plans within plans.)

Letting go of the reigns was hard. I'd never played otherwise. I enjoy it more, now. I hardily recommend playing one of the PbtA games -- Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark (my choice of poison); the very different play while still dealing with familiar tropes is eye-opening for what's possible. 5e does not lend itself to the same play as PbtA -- the systems incentivize differently -- but some of the core play guidelines do cross over: hold on lightly -- be willing to change your plans easily; be a fan of the PCs -- be happy when the PCs succeed, enjoy their foiables; bring the pain -- put the PCs in hard places, up the ante, put the things the PCs love in peril. These translate pretty well.

Oh yeah, I've run DW and have BitD (but the group isn't interested in the setting). I don't find that a lot of PbtA translates well to D&D because of the "homework" needed as a GM. I mean, in DW you can run an original incidental threat on the fly. The complexity of D&D's mechanics makes that tough(er). For D&D, I often will write up say 6 or 7 suitable encounters and let the party blunder around and throw whichever ones seem suitable at them. (I'm not that big into Dungeons per se, so the party is often free to poke around as they please.) I usually use "masterminds" as a plot arc for a few sessions (Although I recently had one run for over 10 on accident, go figure). One unfortunate byproduct of my groups "old-school" origins is that most of the PCs aren't really integrated very deeply into the world (at least to start with), and the few times I've tried to implement something like "put the things the PCs love in peril" they feel more "railroaded" than if they get lied to or persuaded. I mean, I think I mentioned that 5e handles such things clunkily. I feel that way because I've played so many other systems that manage things better. I am perpetually amazed that D&D is so persistently popular, given the quirks and weaknesses in a lot of its mechanical systems.

Good Gaming!

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I would not want to play a game where the DM told me what my character thinks because of a die roll (or 10).

I've been called on this before (on these forums), not because I was telling players what their characters thought but because I was using words like "think" and "believe" instead of "perceive" and "notice" and "observe".

As a GM, it's my job to tell the players what their characters see and hear and smell and so on. The players then decide feelings and thoughts and actions.

If I roll a high CHA (Intimidate) roll for an NPC then I might tell the players, "The guard threatens you. Your observation of her body language, voice, and chosen words indicate that she is ready and willing to back up her threats with violence. What do you do?"

The players are free to decide that their characters don't believe the guard and try to pass but then they have to suffer the consequences.

If I roll low, I could say "The guard threatens you but you notice that her body language and tone of voice indicates that she's not committed. It doesn't look like she's really willing to use force to back up her words."

Alternatively, if the players rolled low on WIS (Insight) then I could say "The guard threatens you. Her body language is unreadable, you can't tell if she's committed or not."

In short,

"You think the guard is threatening." or "You believe she's committed."
Is better phrased as,
"You observe no hesitation in the guard's body language or voice. She is ready to back up her threats with action."

"You believe the senator is telling the truth."
is better phrased as,
"You don't perceive any deception in the senator's voice and expression."

 

[Ratskinner]

This is a really excellent way of explaining the difference.

When you are grappled you are not compelled to do anything (i.e., there is no loss of agency) but there are certain actions that, if you try them...and you can try them if you really want to...the DM can point to a very specific rule that says you fail.

When you have "been persuaded" and your DM says you cannot take such-and-such course of action:
1) He is saying you can't even try.
2) There is no rule to back him up. There is no Persuaded condition.

I'll also add that if you are grappled you can try to break free every turn, and there are rules for that, too. For those of you espousing hard effects of Persuade...is it permanent? Are the targets aware they have been persuaded and can they make Wisdom saves each round to break free? When they do, do they have to be hostile to the caster? (Ok, I'm getting a little bit farcical here...)

Personally, I don't tell them that they can't or must do anything in particular, just that they have been persuaded of the other persons point of view (or whatever). Now, that belief should affect your character's choice of actions, but it doesn't dictate them. So, if on the one hand you're PC supposedly holds all life sacred and on the other is willing to abandon a village full of innocents to their fate while searching for loot....then we need to re-evaluate your position on all life being sacred. On the other hand, plenty of other characters could say: "Yeah, you're right, if we don't defend the village they'll likely die, but I don't care." (The particulars of such a thing could be wildly different, depending on what it is precisely that the persuader tried to get across.) This is why I call it "unsporting" and not cheating, if the persuaded character doesn't go along with it. Generally, all the effects would stay in the fiction rather than the mechanics, so I dunno whether that counts as "hard" for you or not.

As far as how long does it last...that's totally dependent on the fiction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't see much of a distinction between "fail automatically" and "can't try". However, the persuaded PC might act however they want, but they might then deal with guilt and social or divine consequences to acting against their conscience.

But, as mentioned, you can try to get out of the grapple with no lingering effects if successful. How do you get out of the persuasion?

I'm specifically addressing the PvP situation. NPCs in our game don't frequently walk up to the PCs to make Persuasion checks on them (at least not when I'm GMing). Generally, the PCs aren't worth that kind of effort within an NPCs plan. Now, there is the not-so-occasional dishonest NPC. I don't actually usually play with too much of a preconceived plotline, but I do have my NPCs have plots and motivations of their own. Those might include or make use of deceiving or persuading the PCs of something. (Then again, my masterminds are often smart enough to have backup plans and plans within plans.)

Honestly, I actually have more problems with my fellow players running my character than I do the DM, if push comes to shove. Having the jackass that builds super diplomacers so he can control the party with persuasion checks isn't my bag. And, before you go down the 'but my players don't do that' the things is that statement is based on respect and trust that they will not abuse the system you've created, in which case why not just actually trust and respect them to be able to play without the threat of repercussions for ignoring another players control attempt?

Oh yeah, I've run DW and have BitD (but the group isn't interested in the setting). I don't find that a lot of PbtA translates well to D&D because of the "homework" needed as a GM. I mean, in DW you can run an original incidental threat on the fly. The complexity of D&D's mechanics makes that tough(er). For D&D, I often will write up say 6 or 7 suitable encounters and let the party blunder around and throw whichever ones seem suitable at them. (I'm not that big into Dungeons per se, so the party is often free to poke around as they please.) I usually use "masterminds" as a plot arc for a few sessions (Although I recently had one run for over 10 on accident, go figure). One unfortunate byproduct of my groups "old-school" origins is that most of the PCs aren't really integrated very deeply into the world (at least to start with), and the few times I've tried to implement something like "put the things the PCs love in peril" they feel more "railroaded" than if they get lied to or persuaded. I mean, I think I mentioned that 5e handles such things clunkily. I feel that way because I've played so many other systems that manage things better. I am perpetually amazed that D&D is so persistently popular, given the quirks and weaknesses in a lot of its mechanical systems.

Good Gaming!

I have a very different experience, but that's possibly due to how I prep. I prep encounter areas, not encounters, and pull in statblocks for possible bad guys in the area with a few ideas on what they might be doing there. So, if I need an extemporaneous encounter, I already have the stat blocks. Most of the "prep" for D&D can be done quickly (especially in a VTT) if you have statblocks at hand. A bit of experience gives makes a good judge of encounter strengths, and bam, I can drop an encounter that fits the current themes pretty easily, and, if we've gone out into left field, the MM has plenty for me to wing it.

But, then, if you read elsewhere, I've also dug pretty deep into the maths of this edition and have a pretty good handle on how it works and what does what, so it's easier for me to extemporize something because I've already done a lot of "homework". It's also why I tend to use DCs between 10 and 15 the vast majority of the time -- the math for those against un-proficient skills is pretty harsh, even at high levels, and if your proficient that's groovy cool, you win!

But, all that aside, the things I mentioned: holding on lightly, being a fan of the PCs, and bringing the pain are all core DMing conceits that can work just about anywhere.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If I roll a high CHA (Intimidate) roll for an NPC then I might tell the players, "The guard threatens you. Your observation of her body language, voice, and chosen words indicate that she is ready and willing to back up her threats with violence. What do you do?"

What was the uncertain outcome for which you rolled the guard's Intimidate check?

If your answer is, "Whether or not the player was intimidated" why not just ask the player if they are intimidated? Or, better yet, don't ask. Let them behave according to whether or not they think the guard is a credible threat.

If they are first level and the guard was an Ogre, the player will probably be intimidated.

If they are 10th level and the guard was an Orc, the player will probably not be intimidated.

And if it's ambiguous, and the player doesn't know what the guard might have to back up his threats, they will have to decided whether or not they are intimidated.

What does dice rolling and then saying, "You are intimidated" add to anything? If they are not, in fact, intimidated by the guard, what does it add to the game to have them describe actions for their character as if they were?

TL;DR: if you want your players to be intimidated by the guards, use intimidating guards.

 

[GameOgre]

Just played a game of 5E tonight. One of my players runs a Tome Warlock of the elder a Elder God, The Eater of Worlds. The Neutral character was told by a wild crazed beggar npc that he had dreamed the pc would destroy the villages gate in a fiery explosion then mentioned the black flaming tentacles the warlock recognized from his own dreams.

He is unknown as a warlock to the party and for sure they have no clue about his Eater of Worlds tie in. The players all know, it's just their characters have no clue. All night the warlock was working to make that explosion happen while working with the group to save the farmers who has hired the party. He lied, he stole,he went behind other pc's back to arrange things and then played it all off like the bad guys were behind it.

All the while the rest of the party was checking left and right to see if they could in character realize anything was going on. One of the player characters got a pretty big clue and they thought they had him at one point but he in character explained it away with a in character great role playing story and persuasion rolls and the rest of the party bought it hook line and sinker.

So in the end the explosion happened just the way the mad beggar said it was supposed to and the bad guys got the blame and the world moved a fraction closer to it's eventual doom.

Everyone had a blast. They told the player though, his character better not slip up because simply misguided or not the stuff he was doing was pretty messed up. I think the player of the warlock is wrestling picking the patron he did mixed with the goals he has for his character. We will see how it all turns out eventually. Should be interesting if nothing else. Good times.