That depends on what you imagine it means for such a check to "work." I tend not to make these rolls, because I prefer that players make the rolls, and the same kind of situation can be modeled just as well with player checks. But at the end of the day, the goal should always be that each of us plays our character(s) honestly. Players can certainly decide for themselves whether or not they're persuaded, regardless of what I roll on a persuasion check, but that goes both ways. Sometimes there's just no persuading someone, be they PC or NPC.
That depends on what you imagine it means for such a check to "work." I tend not to make these rolls, because I prefer that players make the rolls, and the same kind of situation can be modeled just as well with player checks. But at the end of the day, the goal should always be that each of us plays our character(s) honestly. Players can certainly decide for themselves whether or not they're persuaded, regardless of what I roll on a persuasion check, but that goes both ways. Sometimes there's just no persuading someone, be they PC or NPC.
Sure, why not. Isn’t that the exact reason opposed roles rules exist?
I wouldn’t use those for social stuff.
Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation have a direct counter in Insight. That is quite literally the thing Kent to use for those opposed rolls.
I think some of these are difficult to do without telling your players what their character thinks. Deception I can easily see. You just deceive the player IRL. Intimidation, I can think of a way. "This NPC appears to be stronger than you, a wise man would not attack, etc." You can kind of get around telling your player what they think by suggesting it would be a bad idea to attack. But ultimately allow them to make a decision. Player shouldn't have to roll to see if they have the freedom to pursue a line of action or else be intimidated. Persuasion I fully disagree with. I can't think of a way of persuading a person's character through a check without taking player's freedom/free-will away. A player shouldn't have to roll if a shopkeep is attempting to persuade them to pay above-price and then be forced to pay the higher price if they lose the insight check. Directly detrimental to player agency IMO. The exact same thing can be achieved by just having the shopkeep say that they believe something is above-price due to certain reasons and let the player make the Insight check to see if he is actively deceiving you. Player agency is still intact in this scenario and no character freedom hindered.
i would say yes...otherwise gods and everything else are limited to the persuasive power of the DM. Just as a player can make a dice throw to represent the effectiveness of a song or threat or a wink or whatever...there needs to be some room for it to work the other way..
if not, the character isn't in that world...the character is at the table.
Taking player agency away is a very sketchy thing. When I was in the army, I was in a campaign in the 2e days, so late 90s. One of the dudes in the party was playing a female tiefling character who charmed my character and essentially turned me into his sex slave. I failed my save, and continued to fail saves for many, many sessions. i absolutely HATED it, and had several sessions that were extremely uncomfortable and unfun.
I would never, ever allow another player to have to suffer through that again, either as a player or as a DM. If I was the DM, I'd flat ban that crap with zero questions asked. If I were a player at the table I would immediately tell the DM that's completely unacceptable and if it were allowed to fly I'd be done with that campaign right then and there. IMO players should /never/ be magically compelled unless there's a darned good reason for it /and/ the player is OK with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Have neither of you ever told your Players “You absolutely believe what they are saying” and just expect them to roleplay that without metagaming?!?
I would try something more like "They do not appear to be lying" or "You are unable to determine they are lying" or "They appear to be earnestly telling you the whole truth".
A DM saying something like "Jackson, your character fully believes they are telling the truth" would irk me a bit, as someone other than myself is telling my character how to interpret what they are perceiving. If I wanted my character to remain skeptical, even if my character could not confirm their skeptic leanings, then that should remain my choice to make. I think I'd be okay if it were magical, however, because it's the "magic" making the decision and it's not actually my character's thought process being determined by someone other than myself.
Just don't tell my what my character thinks or believes lol. I came to the table to do that myself.
Have neither of you ever told your Players “You absolutely believe what they are saying” and just expect them to roleplay that without metagaming?!?
I would try something more like "They do not appear to be lying" or "You are unable to determine they are lying" or "They appear to be earnestly telling you the whole truth".
A DM saying something like "Jackson, your character fully believes they are telling the truth" would irk me a bit, as someone other than myself is telling my character how to interpret what they are perceiving. If I wanted my character to remain skeptical, even if my character could not confirm their skeptic leanings, then that should remain my choice to make. I think I'd be okay if it were magical, however, because it's the "magic" making the decision and it's not actually my character's thought process being determined by someone other than myself.
Just don't tell my what my character thinks or believes lol. I came to the table to do that myself.
That’s fair. Exact wording aside, when a DM says some variation of “As far as your character can tell they are being absolutely honest with you” then to roleplay it otherwise might be metagaming.
(When a role was so low that it was apparent to everyone at the table that the Insight check had no way of determining if the NPC was even talking to them or the tree next to them, I will admit to even having said once “You believe the shit out is them. You believe them so hard you feel a little guilty for even doubting them.” And they RPed it while still laughing about it. I guess it all comes down to the group and the situation. 🤷♂️)
Such skills should do something to PCs, but it's a question of what you think they should do. In general, the max an influence roll on an Indifferent target is supposed to do is cause accepting 'minor risk or sacrifice', which isn't going to cause anyone to do something they're truly opposed to doing. As that's a bit hard to define for PCs, I prefer alternate consequences such as "you are Frightened for the first round of combat if attack a foe who has successfully used Intimidation on you".
Have neither of you ever told your Players “You absolutely believe what they are saying” and just expect them to roleplay that without metagaming?!?
This.
Insight is literally your character's ability to perceive truth in statements. If you want your character to be clever and not gullible, put your points into it. Just like you shouldn't force a shy person to ACTUALLY persuade someone of something it's absurd to say that your 8 wisdom (less than common) character is as wise and skeptical as you the player are.
Now, on the opposite, you are free to determine HOW you act out the scene, Telling you that you believe was someone told you doesn't mean you LIKE it or go along with it.
But absolutely my players have failed insight rolls and have been told "You believe what you are being told. He seems to be telling you the truth."
Absolutely 100% I use Intimidation, Persuasion, etc. on my players. ALL of them are very good roleplayers and can take that information and run with it... and have fun doing so. Would I use it in Adventure League? Nope, not a chance unless it was possibly in a fight and caused them to be frightened or something that has a direct reaction.
As a DM I am not telling my player how to respond, I am only telling him what the NPC says and that they failed the necessary check and believe what the person is telling them or feel threatened by this person and then usually a way to evoke emotions in them. "As the Chancellor finishes speaking, you feel reassured that he listened to your arguments and will present them to the king as soon as he possibly can as he leaves the room." "The blacksmith picks up the hammer and his shadow covers the ground menacingly as he dwarfs the flames of the forge and he says, 'You can pay me what you owe, or I'll have Billy get the guards and we'll see if you don't end up in a cell tonight after Dorn is through with you!'" I'm not dictating player action. I am providing them an opportunity to respond after I have provided them more information after a failed roll...
How to DM a rogue that successfully deceives some but not all players.
1) Know the player's insight score and do the social rolls BEFORE you describe it, behind a screen.
2) Describe the social interaction the way in his favor if anyone fell for a deception. The rogue is described as totally respectable, but poor. He is polite but not too polite, alert and strong looking, not an easy mark.
3) Send notes to whichever player got made his insight check that this guy looks shady to you - is that blood on his boots? He looks nervous, like he is double checking the watch is not around.
Taking player agency away is a very sketchy thing. When I was in the army, I was in a campaign in the 2e days, so late 90s. One of the dudes in the party was playing a female tiefling character who charmed my character and essentially turned me into his sex slave. I failed my save, and continued to fail saves for many, many sessions. i absolutely HATED it, and had several sessions that were extremely uncomfortable and unfun.
I would never, ever allow another player to have to suffer through that again, either as a player or as a DM. If I was the DM, I'd flat ban that crap with zero questions asked. If I were a player at the table I would immediately tell the DM that's completely unacceptable and if it were allowed to fly I'd be done with that campaign right then and there. IMO players should /never/ be magically compelled unless there's a darned good reason for it /and/ the player is OK with it.
Exactly! This is what bothers me. You can deceive them, you can tell them what their gut says, but you CANNOT force them to do something against their will without magical compulsion. And even then I wouldn’t allow **** for either a PC or an NPC. I just wouldn’t.
Taking player agency away is a very sketchy thing. When I was in the army, I was in a campaign in the 2e days, so late 90s. One of the dudes in the party was playing a female tiefling character who charmed my character and essentially turned me into his sex slave. I failed my save, and continued to fail saves for many, many sessions. i absolutely HATED it, and had several sessions that were extremely uncomfortable and unfun.
I would never, ever allow another player to have to suffer through that again, either as a player or as a DM. If I was the DM, I'd flat ban that crap with zero questions asked. If I were a player at the table I would immediately tell the DM that's completely unacceptable and if it were allowed to fly I'd be done with that campaign right then and there. IMO players should /never/ be magically compelled unless there's a darned good reason for it /and/ the player is OK with it.
Exactly! This is what bothers me. You can deceive them, you can tell them what their gut says, but you CANNOT force them to do something against their will without magical compulsion. And even then I wouldn’t allow **** for either a PC or an NPC. I just wouldn’t.
Yep. This is exactly why the love domain cleric got nuked. Deceive? Sure. Intimidate? Yes. I've been charmed and raked over the coals too many times back in the 2e days (the tiefling was the most egregious offender, but far from the only) to tolerate not being allowed to make my character's decisions ever again. This is part of why I LOATHE so much statements like WOTC made about druids: "You /can/ wear metal armor, you simply choose not to". GTFO with that. *I* make the choices for my character, not WOTC. If they want to say I can wear light armor and hide, that's legit. Don't tell me I can wear medium and they decide that *I* choose to not do so.
I think there's a bit of people talking past each other in this thread too. The 'yes' group generally seems to be referring to tricking players. That's perfectly OK. Forcing players into some sort of activity is /not/ OK.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My answer is a flat No, but I’m willing to listen to argument.
That depends on what you imagine it means for such a check to "work." I tend not to make these rolls, because I prefer that players make the rolls, and the same kind of situation can be modeled just as well with player checks. But at the end of the day, the goal should always be that each of us plays our character(s) honestly. Players can certainly decide for themselves whether or not they're persuaded, regardless of what I roll on a persuasion check, but that goes both ways. Sometimes there's just no persuading someone, be they PC or NPC.
Sure, why not. Isn’t that the exact reason opposed roles rules exist?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I totally agree with you both ways.
I wouldn’t use those for social stuff.
Persuasion, Deception, and Intimidation have a direct counter in Insight. That is quite literally the thing Kent to use for those opposed rolls.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yes, but absent magical compulsion it’s still your character’s free will whether they go along with it or not.
I think some of these are difficult to do without telling your players what their character thinks.
Deception I can easily see. You just deceive the player IRL.
Intimidation, I can think of a way. "This NPC appears to be stronger than you, a wise man would not attack, etc." You can kind of get around telling your player what they think by suggesting it would be a bad idea to attack. But ultimately allow them to make a decision. Player shouldn't have to roll to see if they have the freedom to pursue a line of action or else be intimidated.
Persuasion I fully disagree with. I can't think of a way of persuading a person's character through a check without taking player's freedom/free-will away. A player shouldn't have to roll if a shopkeep is attempting to persuade them to pay above-price and then be forced to pay the higher price if they lose the insight check. Directly detrimental to player agency IMO. The exact same thing can be achieved by just having the shopkeep say that they believe something is above-price due to certain reasons and let the player make the Insight check to see if he is actively deceiving you. Player agency is still intact in this scenario and no character freedom hindered.
i would say yes...otherwise gods and everything else are limited to the persuasive power of the DM. Just as a player can make a dice throw to represent the effectiveness of a song or threat or a wink or whatever...there needs to be some room for it to work the other way..
if not, the character isn't in that world...the character is at the table.
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
Have neither of you ever told your Players “You absolutely believe what they are saying” and just expect them to roleplay that without metagaming?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Taking player agency away is a very sketchy thing. When I was in the army, I was in a campaign in the 2e days, so late 90s. One of the dudes in the party was playing a female tiefling character who charmed my character and essentially turned me into his sex slave. I failed my save, and continued to fail saves for many, many sessions. i absolutely HATED it, and had several sessions that were extremely uncomfortable and unfun.
I would never, ever allow another player to have to suffer through that again, either as a player or as a DM. If I was the DM, I'd flat ban that crap with zero questions asked. If I were a player at the table I would immediately tell the DM that's completely unacceptable and if it were allowed to fly I'd be done with that campaign right then and there. IMO players should /never/ be magically compelled unless there's a darned good reason for it /and/ the player is OK with it.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I would try something more like "They do not appear to be lying" or "You are unable to determine they are lying" or "They appear to be earnestly telling you the whole truth".
A DM saying something like "Jackson, your character fully believes they are telling the truth" would irk me a bit, as someone other than myself is telling my character how to interpret what they are perceiving. If I wanted my character to remain skeptical, even if my character could not confirm their skeptic leanings, then that should remain my choice to make. I think I'd be okay if it were magical, however, because it's the "magic" making the decision and it's not actually my character's thought process being determined by someone other than myself.
Just don't tell my what my character thinks or believes lol. I came to the table to do that myself.
That’s fair. Exact wording aside, when a DM says some variation of “As far as your character can tell they are being absolutely honest with you” then to roleplay it otherwise might be metagaming.
(When a role was so low that it was apparent to everyone at the table that the Insight check had no way of determining if the NPC was even talking to them or the tree next to them, I will admit to even having said once “You believe the shit out is them. You believe them so hard you feel a little guilty for even doubting them.” And they RPed it while still laughing about it. I guess it all comes down to the group and the situation. 🤷♂️)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Such skills should do something to PCs, but it's a question of what you think they should do. In general, the max an influence roll on an Indifferent target is supposed to do is cause accepting 'minor risk or sacrifice', which isn't going to cause anyone to do something they're truly opposed to doing. As that's a bit hard to define for PCs, I prefer alternate consequences such as "you are Frightened for the first round of combat if attack a foe who has successfully used Intimidation on you".
This.
Insight is literally your character's ability to perceive truth in statements. If you want your character to be clever and not gullible, put your points into it. Just like you shouldn't force a shy person to ACTUALLY persuade someone of something it's absurd to say that your 8 wisdom (less than common) character is as wise and skeptical as you the player are.
Now, on the opposite, you are free to determine HOW you act out the scene, Telling you that you believe was someone told you doesn't mean you LIKE it or go along with it.
But absolutely my players have failed insight rolls and have been told "You believe what you are being told. He seems to be telling you the truth."
Absolutely 100% I use Intimidation, Persuasion, etc. on my players. ALL of them are very good roleplayers and can take that information and run with it... and have fun doing so. Would I use it in Adventure League? Nope, not a chance unless it was possibly in a fight and caused them to be frightened or something that has a direct reaction.
As a DM I am not telling my player how to respond, I am only telling him what the NPC says and that they failed the necessary check and believe what the person is telling them or feel threatened by this person and then usually a way to evoke emotions in them. "As the Chancellor finishes speaking, you feel reassured that he listened to your arguments and will present them to the king as soon as he possibly can as he leaves the room." "The blacksmith picks up the hammer and his shadow covers the ground menacingly as he dwarfs the flames of the forge and he says, 'You can pay me what you owe, or I'll have Billy get the guards and we'll see if you don't end up in a cell tonight after Dorn is through with you!'" I'm not dictating player action. I am providing them an opportunity to respond after I have provided them more information after a failed roll...
It totally works if the DM plays it right.
How to DM a rogue that successfully deceives some but not all players.
1) Know the player's insight score and do the social rolls BEFORE you describe it, behind a screen.
2) Describe the social interaction the way in his favor if anyone fell for a deception. The rogue is described as totally respectable, but poor. He is polite but not too polite, alert and strong looking, not an easy mark.
3) Send notes to whichever player got made his insight check that this guy looks shady to you - is that blood on his boots? He looks nervous, like he is double checking the watch is not around.
Exactly! This is what bothers me. You can deceive them, you can tell them what their gut says, but you CANNOT force them to do something against their will without magical compulsion. And even then I wouldn’t allow **** for either a PC or an NPC. I just wouldn’t.
Sorry. The word got blotted out but you know what I mean.
Yep. This is exactly why the love domain cleric got nuked. Deceive? Sure. Intimidate? Yes. I've been charmed and raked over the coals too many times back in the 2e days (the tiefling was the most egregious offender, but far from the only) to tolerate not being allowed to make my character's decisions ever again. This is part of why I LOATHE so much statements like WOTC made about druids: "You /can/ wear metal armor, you simply choose not to". GTFO with that. *I* make the choices for my character, not WOTC. If they want to say I can wear light armor and hide, that's legit. Don't tell me I can wear medium and they decide that *I* choose to not do so.
I think there's a bit of people talking past each other in this thread too. The 'yes' group generally seems to be referring to tricking players. That's perfectly OK. Forcing players into some sort of activity is /not/ OK.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha