Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor.
This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal--for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest.
Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding.
If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it. In a contest between a monster trying to open a door and an adventurer trying to keep the door closed, a tie means that the door remains shut.
Nowhere does it say which skills to use or not use for this. I can call for a contested roll any damned time I see fit, and for any circumstance I deem necessary. I could use the DC table, but I do not have to. I choose to use contested rolls for social encounters. It is my preference, and it is perfectly acceptable RAW. You don’t use them? That’s up to you.
Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's. This can occur when both of them are trying to do the same thing and only one can succeed, such as attempting to snatch up a magic ring that has fallen on the floor.
This situation also applies when one of them is trying to prevent the other one from accomplishing a goal--for example, when a monster tries to force open a door that an adventurer is holding closed. In situations like these, the outcome is determined by a special form of ability check, called a contest.
Both participants in a contest make ability checks appropriate to their efforts. They apply all appropriate bonuses and penalties, but instead of comparing the total to a DC, they compare the totals of their two checks. The participant with the higher check total wins the contest. That character or monster either succeeds at the action or prevents the other one from succeeding.
If the contest results in a tie, the situation remains the same as it was before the contest. Thus, one contestant might win the contest by default. If two characters tie in a contest to snatch a ring off the floor, neither character grabs it. In a contest between a monster trying to open a door and an adventurer trying to keep the door closed, a tie means that the door remains shut.
Nowhere does it say which skills to use or not use for this. I can call for a contested roll any damned time I see fit, and for any circumstance I deem necessary. I could use the DC table, but I do not have to. I choose to use contested rolls for social encounters. It is my preference, and it is perfectly acceptable RAW. You don’t use them? That’s up to you.
Well what I mean is that persuasion and Intimidation are like DM skills only. Or the skills that only players have access. When comes conflict against npc and player and DM wants player to roll for persuasion. DM sets DC and if player passes the player gets what he wants.
Sorry about that f part i didnt mean that, I am really sorry.
Well what I mean is that persuasion and Intimidation are like DM skills only. Or the skills that only players have access. When comes conflict against npc and player and DM wants player to roll for persuasion. DM sets DC and if player passes he gets what he wants.
Apology accepted.
That’s one way of doing it, but not the only way.
I might call for am opposed check and the degree by which they succeed or fail might influence how much or little they get of what they ask for. I might impose Advantage or Disadvantage on either roll. I might call for opposed persuasion rolls.
And they don’t automatically get what they want if they pass. That’s ridiculous. They cannot ask for the moon and get it if they roll high enough.
Sorry about that f part i didnt mean that, I am really sorry.
Well what I mean is that persuasion and Intimidation are like DM skills only. Or the skills that only players have access. When comes conflict against npc and player and DM wants player to roll for persuasion. DM sets DC and if player passes he gets what he wants.
Apology accepted.
That’s one way of doing it, but not the only way.
I might call for am opposed check and the degree by which they succeed or fail might influence how much or little they get of what they ask for. I might impose Advantage or Disadvantage on either roll. I might call for opposed persuasion rolls.
And they don’t automatically get what they want if they pass. That’s ridiculous. They cannot ask for the moon and get it if they roll high enough.
Let me elaborate. My PCs were going to go to a place where they really should not be. There was couple guards keeping watch. My PCs confronted guards telling they have licence. That's when I called for Persuasion (Charisma) check. I decided DC is 15 and they passed so they had access forward...
Remember the scene in The Princess Bride when our hero Will first meets Fezzik when Fezzik threw the rock at him?
Will was running up at first, and then he slowed down and started to be more cautious. The DM determined that Will’s passive Perception (or maybe even insight because of his read on his enemies) tipped him off, so the DM told Will’s player, and Will’s player decided to start to sneak and actively be on the lookout for enemies. The DM calls for a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and either a Wisdom (Perception) check, or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Will’s player tells the DM the totals for both rolls and the DM could choose to either use Fezzik’s passive (Perception) and passive (Stealth), or could choose to roll both of those as opposed to Will’s rolls. Either way, Fezzik beat Will on both checks.
The DM determines that Fezzik has surprise on Will. Fezzik throws the big rock missing on purpose, so the DM decides that Fezzik is making an (Intimidation) check, but he’s using Strength instead of Charisma for the check due to the nature of the attempt. The DM tells Will’s player to roll a Wisdom (Insight) check to oppose Fezzik’s Intimidation. Will’s player rolls low, and the DM doesn’t.
Then the DM requires that Fezzik and Will make opposed Charisma checks and tells Will’s player that Fezzik is actually rather likable, and that Will can tell that Fezzik seems to like Will too.
Then we get to that part where Fezzik convinces Will to do a fistfight instead of with weapons. That’s where Fezzik makes a (Persuasion) check but because of the logical approach he is using, that Fezzik is making an Intelligence (Persuasion) check. Will’s player then has to make an Intelligence (Insight) check to see if there is any BS in Fezzik’s logic. Will’s player finally passes a check and determines that he probably has a better shot doing it Fezzik’s way.
Fezzik specifically decides to do nothing on his first turnand Will charges in and throws some unarmed strikes at the big guy. Fezzik just takes the hits and the DM uses that to make a Constitution (Intimidation) check for his second turn. Will then makes a Grapple attempt and fails, so the DM narrates it that Will hugs him and tries super hard but nada so Will releases the Grapple. There were some unarmed strikes from Fezzik, some Dodge actions from Will. There were some more Charisma checks back and forth during the fight. Fezzik tries a Charisma (Persuasion) to get Will to talk about the mask. Will passes a Charisma (Deception) check in opposition to it. Finally Will’s player has an idea.
He has Will make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to tumble under Fezzik and rolls a natural 20 + modifiers. Will’s player decides to burn an Action Surge to do another Grapple check. The DM determines that because of the super high (Acrobatics) roll, that Will can make this Grapple check using Dex (Acrobatics) instead of Strength (Athletics). This time it works, and he starts to suffocate Fezzik. Fezzik cannot break free and goes unconscious, but Will’s player makes sure to declare that he makes an Intelligence (Medicine) check to make sure Fezzik is stable before continuing the quest to save Buttercup from the clutches of the Mastermind Rogue, Vizzini.
Remember the scene in The Princess Bride when our hero Will first meets Fezzik when Fezzik threw the rock at him?
Will was running up at first, and then he slowed down and started to be more cautious. The DM determined that Will’s passive Perception (or maybe even insight because of his read on his enemies) tipped him off, so the DM told Will’s player, and Will’s player decided to start to sneak and actively be on the lookout for enemies. The DM calls for a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and either a Wisdom (Perception) check, or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Will’s player tells the DM the totals for both rolls and the DM could choose to either use Fezzik’s passive (Perception) and passive (Stealth), or could choose to roll both of those as opposed to Will’s rolls. Either way, Fezzik beat Will on both checks.
The DM determines that Fezzik has surprise on Will. Fezzik throws the big rock missing on purpose, so the DM decides that Fezzik is making an (Intimidation) check, but he’s using Strength instead of Charisma for the check due to the nature of the attempt. The DM tells Will’s player to roll a Wisdom (Insight) check to oppose Fezzik’s Intimidation. Will’s player rolls low, and the DM doesn’t.
Then the DM requires that Fezzik and Will make opposed Charisma checks and tells Will’s player that Fezzik is actually rather likable, and that Will can tell that Fezzik seems to like Will too.
Then we get to that part where Fezzik convinces Will to do a fistfight instead of with weapons. That’s where Fezzik makes a (Persuasion) check but because of the logical approach he is using, that Fezzik is making an Intelligence (Persuasion) check. Will’s player then has to make an Intelligence (Insight) check to see if there is any BS in Fezzik’s logic. Will’s player finally passes a check and determines that he probably has a better shot doing it Fezzik’s way.
Fezzik specifically decides to do nothing on his first turnand Will charges in and throws some unarmed strikes at the big guy. Fezzik just takes the hits and the DM uses that to make a Constitution (Intimidation) check for his second turn. Will then makes a Grapple attempt and fails, so the DM narrates it that Will hugs him and tries super hard but nada so Will releases the Grapple. There were some unarmed strikes from Fezzik, some Dodge actions from Will. There were some more Charisma checks back and forth during the fight. Fezzik tries a Charisma (Persuasion) to get Will to talk about the mask. Will passes a Charisma (Deception) check in opposition to it. Finally Will’s player has an idea.
He has Will make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to tumble under Fezzik and rolls a natural 20 + modifiers. Will’s player decides to burn an Action Surge to do another Grapple check. The DM determines that because of the super high (Acrobatics) roll, that Will can make this Grapple check using Dex (Acrobatics) instead of Strength (Athletics). This time it works, and he starts to suffocate Fezzik. Fezzik cannot break free and goes unconscious, but Will’s player makes sure to declare that he makes an Intelligence (Medicine) check to make sure Fezzik is stable before continuing the quest to save Buttercup from the clutches of the Mastermind Rogue, Vizzini.
Well no bad then. Usually when i DM and call for persuasion or Intimidation it is set DC no contested against anything.
Remember the scene in The Princess Bride when our hero Will first meets Fezzik when Fezzik threw the rock at him?
Will was running up at first, and then he slowed down and started to be more cautious. The DM determined that Will’s passive Perception (or maybe even insight because of his read on his enemies) tipped him off, so the DM told Will’s player, and Will’s player decided to start to sneak and actively be on the lookout for enemies. The DM calls for a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and either a Wisdom (Perception) check, or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Will’s player tells the DM the totals for both rolls and the DM could choose to either use Fezzik’s passive (Perception) and passive (Stealth), or could choose to roll both of those as opposed to Will’s rolls. Either way, Fezzik beat Will on both checks.
The DM determines that Fezzik has surprise on Will. Fezzik throws the big rock missing on purpose, so the DM decides that Fezzik is making an (Intimidation) check, but he’s using Strength instead of Charisma for the check due to the nature of the attempt. The DM tells Will’s player to roll a Wisdom (Insight) check to oppose Fezzik’s Intimidation. Will’s player rolls low, and the DM doesn’t.
Then the DM requires that Fezzik and Will make opposed Charisma checks and tells Will’s player that Fezzik is actually rather likable, and that Will can tell that Fezzik seems to like Will too.
Then we get to that part where Fezzik convinces Will to do a fistfight instead of with weapons. That’s where Fezzik makes a (Persuasion) check but because of the logical approach he is using, that Fezzik is making an Intelligence (Persuasion) check. Will’s player then has to make an Intelligence (Insight) check to see if there is any BS in Fezzik’s logic. Will’s player finally passes a check and determines that he probably has a better shot doing it Fezzik’s way.
Fezzik specifically decides to do nothing on his first turnand Will charges in and throws some unarmed strikes at the big guy. Fezzik just takes the hits and the DM uses that to make a Constitution (Intimidation) check for his second turn. Will then makes a Grapple attempt and fails, so the DM narrates it that Will hugs him and tries super hard but nada so Will releases the Grapple. There were some unarmed strikes from Fezzik, some Dodge actions from Will. There were some more Charisma checks back and forth during the fight. Fezzik tries a Charisma (Persuasion) to get Will to talk about the mask. Will passes a Charisma (Deception) check in opposition to it. Finally Will’s player has an idea.
He has Will make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to tumble under Fezzik and rolls a natural 20 + modifiers. Will’s player decides to burn an Action Surge to do another Grapple check. The DM determines that because of the super high (Acrobatics) roll, that Will can make this Grapple check using Dex (Acrobatics) instead of Strength (Athletics). This time it works, and he starts to suffocate Fezzik. Fezzik cannot break free and goes unconscious, but Will’s player makes sure to declare that he makes an Intelligence (Medicine) check to make sure Fezzik is stable before continuing the quest to save Buttercup from the clutches of the Mastermind Rogue, Vizzini.
Well no bad then. Usually when i DM and call for persuasion or Intimidation it is set DC no contested against anything.
Seems I was wrong.
Not wrong. That is one very legitimate way to do it. It’s just not the only way to do it.
Remember the scene in The Princess Bride when our hero Will first meets Fezzik when Fezzik threw the rock at him?
Will was running up at first, and then he slowed down and started to be more cautious. The DM determined that Will’s passive Perception (or maybe even insight because of his read on his enemies) tipped him off, so the DM told Will’s player, and Will’s player decided to start to sneak and actively be on the lookout for enemies. The DM calls for a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and either a Wisdom (Perception) check, or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Will’s player tells the DM the totals for both rolls and the DM could choose to either use Fezzik’s passive (Perception) and passive (Stealth), or could choose to roll both of those as opposed to Will’s rolls. Either way, Fezzik beat Will on both checks.
The DM determines that Fezzik has surprise on Will. Fezzik throws the big rock missing on purpose, so the DM decides that Fezzik is making an (Intimidation) check, but he’s using Strength instead of Charisma for the check due to the nature of the attempt. The DM tells Will’s player to roll a Wisdom (Insight) check to oppose Fezzik’s Intimidation. Will’s player rolls low, and the DM doesn’t.
Then the DM requires that Fezzik and Will make opposed Charisma checks and tells Will’s player that Fezzik is actually rather likable, and that Will can tell that Fezzik seems to like Will too.
Then we get to that part where Fezzik convinces Will to do a fistfight instead of with weapons. That’s where Fezzik makes a (Persuasion) check but because of the logical approach he is using, that Fezzik is making an Intelligence (Persuasion) check. Will’s player then has to make an Intelligence (Insight) check to see if there is any BS in Fezzik’s logic. Will’s player finally passes a check and determines that he probably has a better shot doing it Fezzik’s way.
Fezzik specifically decides to do nothing on his first turnand Will charges in and throws some unarmed strikes at the big guy. Fezzik just takes the hits and the DM uses that to make a Constitution (Intimidation) check for his second turn. Will then makes a Grapple attempt and fails, so the DM narrates it that Will hugs him and tries super hard but nada so Will releases the Grapple. There were some unarmed strikes from Fezzik, some Dodge actions from Will. There were some more Charisma checks back and forth during the fight. Fezzik tries a Charisma (Persuasion) to get Will to talk about the mask. Will passes a Charisma (Deception) check in opposition to it. Finally Will’s player has an idea.
He has Will make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to tumble under Fezzik and rolls a natural 20 + modifiers. Will’s player decides to burn an Action Surge to do another Grapple check. The DM determines that because of the super high (Acrobatics) roll, that Will can make this Grapple check using Dex (Acrobatics) instead of Strength (Athletics). This time it works, and he starts to suffocate Fezzik. Fezzik cannot break free and goes unconscious, but Will’s player makes sure to declare that he makes an Intelligence (Medicine) check to make sure Fezzik is stable before continuing the quest to save Buttercup from the clutches of the Mastermind Rogue, Vizzini.
Well no bad then. Usually when i DM and call for persuasion or Intimidation it is set DC no contested against anything.
Seems I was wrong.
Not wrong. That is one very legitimate way to do it. It’s just not the only way to do it.
Actually there was not one contest in there. Only legitimate ways to use different ability scores on different checks
Persuasion
When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk.
Having Fezzik roll (Stealth) and (Perception) as direct opposition to Will’s (Perception) and (Stealth) respectively were two direct contests.
Having Fezzik the NPC roll (Persuasion) and (Intimidation) against Will, the PC‘s (Insight) are two more direct contests.
Having Fezzik roll (Persuasion) against Will’s (Deception) is another opposed check.
Grapple checks are by their very nature direct contests. Will made one in the beginning, and then another later. That’s two more. Suffocation takes a minimum of 6 turns. So Will has to make a Grapple check each of those turns to hold on. And Fezzik was making them on his turns too, trying to break the grapple. And with Fezzik’s presumed high Constitution, probably more than 6 turns were needed to suffocate him.
I count no fewer than 19 contested Ability checks (and likely more) in that scenario.
Sorry about that f part i didnt mean that, I am really sorry.
Apology accepted.
If things are getting heated, then it's probably best that folks step away. Please do not resolve to name calling or personal attacks. I'm glad this was resolved (note, I've edited posts to remove the interaction).
General Reminder from the mods - please place nice folks, it's our birthday and we don't want any tears! (even though it's our birthday, and we will cry if we want to... cry if we want to...)
Remember the scene in The Princess Bride when our hero Will first meets Fezzik when Fezzik threw the rock at him?
Will was running up at first, and then he slowed down and started to be more cautious. The DM determined that Will’s passive Perception (or maybe even insight because of his read on his enemies) tipped him off, so the DM told Will’s player, and Will’s player decided to start to sneak and actively be on the lookout for enemies. The DM calls for a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and either a Wisdom (Perception) check, or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Will’s player tells the DM the totals for both rolls and the DM could choose to either use Fezzik’s passive (Perception) and passive (Stealth), or could choose to roll both of those as opposed to Will’s rolls. Either way, Fezzik beat Will on both checks.
The DM determines that Fezzik has surprise on Will. Fezzik throws the big rock missing on purpose, so the DM decides that Fezzik is making an (Intimidation) check, but he’s using Strength instead of Charisma for the check due to the nature of the attempt. The DM tells Will’s player to roll a Wisdom (Insight) check to oppose Fezzik’s Intimidation. Will’s player rolls low, and the DM doesn’t.
Then the DM requires that Fezzik and Will make opposed Charisma checks and tells Will’s player that Fezzik is actually rather likable, and that Will can tell that Fezzik seems to like Will too.
Then we get to that part where Fezzik convinces Will to do a fistfight instead of with weapons. That’s where Fezzik makes a (Persuasion) check but because of the logical approach he is using, that Fezzik is making an Intelligence (Persuasion) check. Will’s player then has to make an Intelligence (Insight) check to see if there is any BS in Fezzik’s logic. Will’s player finally passes a check and determines that he probably has a better shot doing it Fezzik’s way.
Fezzik specifically decides to do nothing on his first turnand Will charges in and throws some unarmed strikes at the big guy. Fezzik just takes the hits and the DM uses that to make a Constitution (Intimidation) check for his second turn. Will then makes a Grapple attempt and fails, so the DM narrates it that Will hugs him and tries super hard but nada so Will releases the Grapple. There were some unarmed strikes from Fezzik, some Dodge actions from Will. There were some more Charisma checks back and forth during the fight. Fezzik tries a Charisma (Persuasion) to get Will to talk about the mask. Will passes a Charisma (Deception) check in opposition to it. Finally Will’s player has an idea.
He has Will make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to tumble under Fezzik and rolls a natural 20 + modifiers. Will’s player decides to burn an Action Surge to do another Grapple check. The DM determines that because of the super high (Acrobatics) roll, that Will can make this Grapple check using Dex (Acrobatics) instead of Strength (Athletics). This time it works, and he starts to suffocate Fezzik. Fezzik cannot break free and goes unconscious, but Will’s player makes sure to declare that he makes an Intelligence (Medicine) check to make sure Fezzik is stable before continuing the quest to save Buttercup from the clutches of the Mastermind Rogue, Vizzini.
My answer is a flat No, but I’m willing to listen to argument.
the answer is that it depends on various elements at play.
In case of social interactions a contested roll doesn't mean an automatic success and failure in most cases. When you look at the Social Interaction part of the book it shows that NPC's have a different state to every single NPC/PC in the world. If someone is hostile then they will not automatically do whatever the player wants. Just because they won the contested roll. The contested roll would merely convince the NPC to be less hostile and somewhat open to the idea presented. Not outright doing whatever the player wants. In social situations these rules are very.... shallow and incomplete in my opinion. I rather use a fluid form of a skill challenge until we ever come up with a way better way of handling stuff like this. However a DM can also handwave all of this and just let a really good roleplay determine how the DM adjucates the outcome. If it is between players, or something of a more simplistic situation. then a contested Bluff, Intimidate or whatever check can be done.
Because it is rather weak as a system overall you get plenty of interpretations on how to handle it in game. RAW is just shit and unbelievable in practice. So some DM's set DC"s that they find reasonable for the situation. Other create the DC by using the passive stat of a character to be contested by an active roll. All valid ways of doing it. However I don't agree with HollowTPM. Given NPC's a chance of failure is how it should be. In fact many great dramatic moments can come from the NPC's failing. Everyone has an off day, or perhaps the guard just doesn't really care about their job and is doing it out of necessity etc. You just need to give it an interesting narrative swing should the NPC fail. If they're important NPC's like a lord of some sort. Then you obviously put the DC much higher to reduce the chance of them failing. And as I said before. The social rules show there are different states that the lord can look upon the PC's. So even if the PC's win their first set of rolls. It'll only make the lord more open to even hearing them out instead of outright giving the PC's whatever the **** they want.
I also don't understand the need to tell the players the DC's or anything. That is optional if you as the DM want to do it. However it shouldn't be mandatory. The players don't need to know how difficult someone is to persuade or how the skill level to anything is. That only leads to more meta-gaming. Just tell the player that what the NPC said comes across as truthful and without flaws of reasoning. And that is the response and relationship they need to roleplay. Knowing that they won the roll with x vs y number is useless additional information.
@crazyhawk. the situation described about being a sexual slave to another PC is a bigger issue at the table. has less to do with using contested dice rolls or not. just because you played with a shitty group that had shitty agreements doesn't mean it can't work for other tables. we have PVP situations that work just fine as long as it falls within the boundaries we agreed upon beforehand. As are the views of "NPC's are just there to be messed with" and "DM doesn't get me to tell me shit" even though your character clearly failed. You and your table has some deeper seated issues that need to be resolved.
@tyybbi997 It is quite common to have monster/npc stat blocks with persuasion, deception and such on them. They've been common since ye olden days. and they can be used against PC's as well as NPC's. They're not exclusive to one or the other. However if you got shitty players that can't roleplay... well... that just means you got bigger problems. Social checks in the earlier editions were quite common as well. and players played it out just fine. so why should it suddenly be any different in 5e? it is really simple. All rules that apply to the PC's also apply to NPC's/Monsters and vice versa.
@brutallyHonestDM You can't mindcontrol anyone with just social checks. As mentioned above. There are ranges from Liking-Neutral-Hating someone and a few states in between that. So it takes a longer period of time of multiple social interactions and checks to make the needle move. Eventually you'll get to being very well liked and respected. And you can gradually start to indoctrinated people over time to create your own cult. And do the Manson thing if you wanted to go that route. Magical means of influence would just speed up the process. However with various spells it also means the inflicted creature will know the spell is used on them. So once you fail at re-casting it in time. The NPC will have a serious cause for alarm. Where social skill checks are more subtle over longer period of time with a more trusting outcome.
1. There are exact spells for this. This would make those spells useless and pointless.
2. It makes no sense for a dude to show up and convince someone to kill their spouse of 60 years. A cara salesman might be able to persuade you into buying a new car if you were already thinking about it. A random dude isn't going to convince you to give him your car, wife, house, and job just because he has a nice smile.
Persuasion is not a mind control spell.
Those are extremes and when DC's come into play. Manson didn't use magic to convince people to kill for him, but that was over looooong time with people who are easily manipulated, it's how cults start. You wouldn't be able to have an NPC come up and persuade a character to just jump off of a cliff, but he could convince him that he is trustworthy and should take on a job he has or that he is not the correct person the party is looking for. But all in all, yes skills should be used by both PCs and NPCs.
Yes skills should be used both ways. The question is "Should they 'work' on PCs." That to me is a bigger issue. Skills like persuasion shouldn't work on anyone. They should be rolls used to help players (I am considering the DM a player in this context) to see how good that idea sounded.
What Mason did was brain washing. Another topic for another time. Also convincing someone your trustworthy would be more of a deception versus insight contest. Convincing someone to take a job would fall under persuasion yes. But I would never tell my players their characters take it, nor would I let my players use it as mind control.
I'd simply say that the person presenting the job does seem to be making very valid points, and what he is saying is very compelling. Yet the choice, the agency as with real life, still lies in whether they want to act upon that or not.
The big issue is people do use it as mind control.
Player: "Give me your inn!"
Inn keeper: "Umm, no. This has been in my family for 5 generations. Plus is be poor with out it."
Player: "I rolled a 23 on persuasion, so he feels compelled to give me the inn."
No, no he doesn't. That's not how it works. Those rolls are used to convince someone to do something they're on the fence about, and even then its still a choice THEY MAKE. They are not used to get anyone to do anything you want at any time.
Well as you did respond to me, allow me to retort. Yes you are making a straw man argument as nowhere other than your examples has anyone including myself say it's mind control. Persuasion is a skill that can be used against players and should, but not in the ridiculous circumstance that you are putting forth that has no basis on anything anyone has said nor would it make any sense. Persuasion would be a commoner trying to get help from a character, how well they plead their case, how well a merchant convinces them of a price or quality of an item, whether the town guard is to be trusted, a local gang how dangerous they are..... TONS of ways for it to be used, and that it should be used, none of which are as extreme and illogical as what you have stated.
If you do not use persuasion and deception as you state because a roll should allow anything, I will propose the same straw man to you. You should not allow athletics checks either or I will have my barbarian roll a nat 20 that will allow him to pick up Waterdeep and hit a dragon with it. See, extreme and makes no sense as you persuasion check to have someone give away their inn.
As a DM you need to work your NPCs like th PCs do their characters. If you roll a low persuasion for them to convince a party of X, you should roll play that out and also let them know the NPC doesn't sound very convincing, or that the NPC is very passionate about their plea and that their story touches the characters deeply and that they feel compelled to at least give the NPC's story a discussion. But you are right, it's not mind control nor should it be, but nobody here other than you said it was.
Boy oh boy. This horse has been beat to death.
My response was to the OP. Yes my response could be presumptive based on the fact that I responded based on my experience on how people generally treat these skills.
The fact that no one else in this thread said or did not say it was mind control is a moot point and irrelevant. I do not have to comb through dozens of posts and curate my response to what other people are saying. As forums function I am free to jump and say things totally unrelated to other peoples discussions as long as I am staying on topic of the original post.
Since the OP gave no parameters to what they fully meant, that leaves the door wide open to interpretation.
Me making a remark to the OP about how I don't think it should just "work" as its meant to be an aid in a skill and not something that just forces a situation. My response isn't a straw man.
The only straw man that has been going I is people wanting to put words into my mouth telling me what I meant and tearing that argument down. Much as you're doing right now.
I've explained several times already what I really meant.
Again we can sit here splitting hairs and debating a point I never made, or we can move on with the topic at hand.
Social skills, they're meant to be used in aiding people in situations.
Social skills, they're not meant to force people to do what you want.
Agree? Disagree? Either way lets please move on already. You're just beating a dead horse at this point.
lol Not putting words in your mouth when you literally said that NO they should not be used, that it's not mind control, and then proceeded to say your can't persuade someone to kill their spouse of 60 years. Nobody made you type that, that was all you. We are just saying that premise is ridiculous and that YES you can use those skills just not the extreme that you postulated. If you would have maybe stated that to a degree they should be used as we are, then you wouldn't be presented with those points of view. Your response was an absolute which is just not correct. And yes, social skills are there to make people do what you want, that's why they are skills. Same as athletics is there to do what you want by shoving someone down or perception is there to notice a hidden person, social skills are there for you to be able to actually use them to do what you want. But again, within reason and not to the extremes of which you are citing.
This is a message board to show different points of view and discuss. Nobody is putting words in your mouth as there is this quote thing that's being used that shows what you initially said. You said "Absolutely Not" which if you look up the definition of absolute then you can see where we are coming from. My response was just that, based on RAW, what you stated is incorrect and why. No worries, probably just a poor choice of wording and a very bad example if you are now saying that yes you should be able to use them, but it's not entirely clear as your statements tend to contradict. No worries though, I'm out on this wall of text haha. Have fun!!
1. There are exact spells for this. This would make those spells useless and pointless.
2. It makes no sense for a dude to show up and convince someone to kill their spouse of 60 years. A cara salesman might be able to persuade you into buying a new car if you were already thinking about it. A random dude isn't going to convince you to give him your car, wife, house, and job just because he has a nice smile.
Persuasion is not a mind control spell.
Those are extremes and when DC's come into play. Manson didn't use magic to convince people to kill for him, but that was over looooong time with people who are easily manipulated, it's how cults start. You wouldn't be able to have an NPC come up and persuade a character to just jump off of a cliff, but he could convince him that he is trustworthy and should take on a job he has or that he is not the correct person the party is looking for. But all in all, yes skills should be used by both PCs and NPCs.
Yes skills should be used both ways. The question is "Should they 'work' on PCs." That to me is a bigger issue. Skills like persuasion shouldn't work on anyone. They should be rolls used to help players (I am considering the DM a player in this context) to see how good that idea sounded.
What Mason did was brain washing. Another topic for another time. Also convincing someone your trustworthy would be more of a deception versus insight contest. Convincing someone to take a job would fall under persuasion yes. But I would never tell my players their characters take it, nor would I let my players use it as mind control.
I'd simply say that the person presenting the job does seem to be making very valid points, and what he is saying is very compelling. Yet the choice, the agency as with real life, still lies in whether they want to act upon that or not.
The big issue is people do use it as mind control.
Player: "Give me your inn!"
Inn keeper: "Umm, no. This has been in my family for 5 generations. Plus is be poor with out it."
Player: "I rolled a 23 on persuasion, so he feels compelled to give me the inn."
No, no he doesn't. That's not how it works. Those rolls are used to convince someone to do something they're on the fence about, and even then its still a choice THEY MAKE. They are not used to get anyone to do anything you want at any time.
Well as you did respond to me, allow me to retort. Yes you are making a straw man argument as nowhere other than your examples has anyone including myself say it's mind control. Persuasion is a skill that can be used against players and should, but not in the ridiculous circumstance that you are putting forth that has no basis on anything anyone has said nor would it make any sense. Persuasion would be a commoner trying to get help from a character, how well they plead their case, how well a merchant convinces them of a price or quality of an item, whether the town guard is to be trusted, a local gang how dangerous they are..... TONS of ways for it to be used, and that it should be used, none of which are as extreme and illogical as what you have stated.
If you do not use persuasion and deception as you state because a roll should allow anything, I will propose the same straw man to you. You should not allow athletics checks either or I will have my barbarian roll a nat 20 that will allow him to pick up Waterdeep and hit a dragon with it. See, extreme and makes no sense as you persuasion check to have someone give away their inn.
As a DM you need to work your NPCs like th PCs do their characters. If you roll a low persuasion for them to convince a party of X, you should roll play that out and also let them know the NPC doesn't sound very convincing, or that the NPC is very passionate about their plea and that their story touches the characters deeply and that they feel compelled to at least give the NPC's story a discussion. But you are right, it's not mind control nor should it be, but nobody here other than you said it was.
Boy oh boy. This horse has been beat to death.
My response was to the OP. Yes my response could be presumptive based on the fact that I responded based on my experience on how people generally treat these skills.
The fact that no one else in this thread said or did not say it was mind control is a moot point and irrelevant. I do not have to comb through dozens of posts and curate my response to what other people are saying. As forums function I am free to jump and say things totally unrelated to other peoples discussions as long as I am staying on topic of the original post.
Since the OP gave no parameters to what they fully meant, that leaves the door wide open to interpretation.
Me making a remark to the OP about how I don't think it should just "work" as its meant to be an aid in a skill and not something that just forces a situation. My response isn't a straw man.
The only straw man that has been going I is people wanting to put words into my mouth telling me what I meant and tearing that argument down. Much as you're doing right now.
I've explained several times already what I really meant.
Again we can sit here splitting hairs and debating a point I never made, or we can move on with the topic at hand.
Social skills, they're meant to be used in aiding people in situations.
Social skills, they're not meant to force people to do what you want.
Agree? Disagree? Either way lets please move on already. You're just beating a dead horse at this point.
lol Not putting words in your mouth when you literally said that NO they should not be used, that it's not mind control, and then proceeded to say your can't persuade someone to kill their spouse of 60 years. Nobody made you type that, that was all you. We are just saying that premise is ridiculous and that YES you can use those skills just not the extreme that you postulated. If you would have maybe stated that to a degree they should be used as we are, then you wouldn't be presented with those points of view. Your response was an absolute which is just not correct. And yes, social skills are there to make people do what you want, that's why they are skills. Same as athletics is there to do what you want by shoving someone down or perception is there to notice a hidden person, social skills are there for you to be able to actually use them to do what you want. But again, within reason and not to the extremes of which you are citing.
This is a message board to show different points of view and discuss. Nobody is putting words in your mouth as there is this quote thing that's being used that shows what you initially said. You said "Absolutely Not" which if you look up the definition of absolute then you can see where we are coming from. My response was just that, based on RAW, what you stated is incorrect and why. No worries, probably just a poor choice of wording and a very bad example if you are now saying that yes you should be able to use them, but it's not entirely clear as your statements tend to contradict. No worries though, I'm out on this wall of text haha. Have fun!!
You're really missing the point.
I resonded to the OP answering their question based on the parameters they set. Thus my statement was fully on topic and perfectly valid. If the OP wants to come in here and clarify what they meant instead of leaving it open, then I'd gladly change my response to that.
It doesn't matter if what I said didn't conform to what IamSpota, or anyone else, was saying. It is 100% irrelevant. They asked what I said had to do with what they were saying, and I explained to them that I wasn't speaking to them. Pretty simple.
I do not have to respond to other people in the topic, and I do not have to curate it to what they're talking about. As long as I respond to the OP and keep it on topic I am free to say what ever I please despite your feelings on it. And that's exactly what I did.
I was also asked what I meant, and I have now explained it several times that the claims you're making I NEVER said. Yet you keep wanting to tell me I said and meant something else despite the facts to the contrary. So I don't know what to tell you. You're beating a dead horse at this point. You haven't said anything anyone else said that I've already refuted.
Let's move on. This isn't a contest for you to prove you're right. I responded to the topic well within the rules of the forums, and no matter what you want to tell me i actually meant, its not. We're not having a discussion here. You telling me I can't say what I said because no one else was talking about it and telling me what I meant to say isn't a discussion. Its bullying, so drop it.
I already explained how I feel it should "work" since You want to use that phrase. We can discuss that if you wish. Telling me that what I said had nothing to do with what other people said, and how I said it wont fix anything.
To me, it would be better to use storytelling than mechanics to convince players to do/not do something. The mechanics would come into play if the players attempt to contest what they're being told.
I recently saw a campaign where the players were convinced to go in the wrong direction instead of to their intended place all through RP. A player attempted to detect deception but did not detect any (as a contest against the NPC's stats but exposed to the players as a skill check - meaning there was a chance to learn that the charismatic NPC was lying). So, the players took it at the NPC's word and ended up back where they started.
The end result was the same effect of Persuasion without using Persuasion, putting the onus upon the players - never letting them feel like they're out of control in a purely social situation. The realization they were duped was the best thing to see. They first made sure what they were seeing wasn't an illusion or some magical effect before it became clear they were deceived.
To me, that makes the players feel what it must be like for a persuaded NPC - feeling like it's their own decision - rather than relying on d20s to force a situation.
Yet... in D&D, the only wrong way to play is where nobody is having fun.
If players want to submit to the d20 on skill checks against them, let them.
If players don't, find another creative way to convince the players and use skill checks from the players' perspective.
Don't force players to not have fun because "it's the rules". As XGtE once stated in This Is Your Life: "Ideas, not rules." The DM has the choice on how to play the game so everyone has the most fun and not feel like they're cheating nor being cheated.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
As a reminder to some of the folks arguing against social/Charisma skills functioning akin to Mind Control: the DM decides when a player rolls a check. Not the player.
If, as per a prior example, the player walks up to an innkeeper and says "Hey, this is a nice inn! You should give it to me!", and rolls what he fondly imagines is a Persuasion check? The DM is perfectly entitled to respond "The jovial old innkeeper laughs off your demand, instead simply saying 'yes, it is nice, isn't it? Been in my family for five generations, I'm proud of what we've built here!'"
When the player tries to report their Persuasion attempt, you simply say "I didn't ask you for a Persuasion roll" and move on with the game. If they get snippy, explain that ability checks are for situations on the edge where both success and failure are possible, and stupid asks such as 'make the innkeeper give up his inn' are not worth dignifying with a roll. This is even more obvious when one spins it the other way - a DM with a player giving her guff can say:
"All right. The next time a beggar manages to roll a high Persuasion check when asking you for alms, you have to give up all of your gear and magical equipment to that beggar. What? You're outraged, your character would never do that no matter what a beggar rolled? I am in complete agreement, your character is a well-known miser and treasureholic. They'd never give a single copper piece to a beggar...just like an innkeeper whose entire livelihood is the inn that his family has built over generations would never give it up to a total stranger who walked in off the street and made silly little demands for it no matter what your shiny math rock there says. Now sit down, shut up, stop arguing with me, and remember that you roll when I dang well say you roll, not whenever you feel like poking holes in our story."
@brutallyHonestDM You can't mindcontrol anyone with just social checks. As mentioned above. There are ranges from Liking-Neutral-Hating someone and a few states in between that. So it takes a longer period of time of multiple social interactions and checks to make the needle move. Eventually you'll get to being very well liked and respected. And you can gradually start to indoctrinated people over time to create your own cult. And do the Manson thing if you wanted to go that route. Magical means of influence would just speed up the process. However with various spells it also means the inflicted creature will know the spell is used on them. So once you fail at re-casting it in time. The NPC will have a serious cause for alarm. Where social skill checks are more subtle over longer period of time with a more trusting outcome.
Again I never said those things. The point you are making is exactly what I said and been saying. I've said over and over and over SOCIAL SKILLS ARE MEANT TO BE AIDS TO HELP PEOPLE IN SOCIAL SITUATIONS. THEY ARE NOT TOOLS USED TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO AN ACTION THEY DIDNT WANT TO DO.
That's it. That's all. Why you're all insisting I am advocating that it is mind control, when my first message straight up claimed it wasn't, and that I don't think anyone should ever use them is beyond me. I. Never. Made. Those. Claims.
Proof and point i never brought up Manson. Someone else did. All I did was refute their point. So the fact that you think I'm using is as an argument tells me you didn't even read my post or the context of it. Good gravy y'all.
At this point even I have to say that BrutallyHonestDM has made their point repeatedly and it makes no sense to continue debating it with them. They have made it clear to whom they were responding, and what the intent of their post was about. ‘Nuff said.
Here are some rules for you to read:
Nowhere does it say which skills to use or not use for this. I can call for a contested roll any damned time I see fit, and for any circumstance I deem necessary. I could use the DC table, but I do not have to. I choose to use contested rolls for social encounters. It is my preference, and it is perfectly acceptable RAW. You don’t use them? That’s up to you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well what I mean is that persuasion and Intimidation are like DM skills only. Or the skills that only players have access. When comes conflict against npc and player and DM wants player to roll for persuasion. DM sets DC and if player passes the player gets what he wants.
Apology accepted.
That’s one way of doing it, but not the only way.
I might call for am opposed check and the degree by which they succeed or fail might influence how much or little they get of what they ask for. I might impose Advantage or Disadvantage on either roll. I might call for opposed persuasion rolls.
And they don’t automatically get what they want if they pass. That’s ridiculous. They cannot ask for the moon and get it if they roll high enough.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Let me elaborate. My PCs were going to go to a place where they really should not be. There was couple guards keeping watch. My PCs confronted guards telling they have licence. That's when I called for Persuasion (Charisma) check. I decided DC is 15 and they passed so they had access forward...
Alright, here’s an example for you:
Remember the scene in The Princess Bride when our hero Will first meets Fezzik when Fezzik threw the rock at him?
Will was running up at first, and then he slowed down and started to be more cautious. The DM determined that Will’s passive Perception (or maybe even insight because of his read on his enemies) tipped him off, so the DM told Will’s player, and Will’s player decided to start to sneak and actively be on the lookout for enemies. The DM calls for a Dexterity (Stealth) check, and either a Wisdom (Perception) check, or an Intelligence (Investigation) check.
Will’s player tells the DM the totals for both rolls and the DM could choose to either use Fezzik’s passive (Perception) and passive (Stealth), or could choose to roll both of those as opposed to Will’s rolls. Either way, Fezzik beat Will on both checks.
The DM determines that Fezzik has surprise on Will. Fezzik throws the big rock missing on purpose, so the DM decides that Fezzik is making an (Intimidation) check, but he’s using Strength instead of Charisma for the check due to the nature of the attempt. The DM tells Will’s player to roll a Wisdom (Insight) check to oppose Fezzik’s Intimidation. Will’s player rolls low, and the DM doesn’t.
Then the DM requires that Fezzik and Will make opposed Charisma checks and tells Will’s player that Fezzik is actually rather likable, and that Will can tell that Fezzik seems to like Will too.
Then we get to that part where Fezzik convinces Will to do a fistfight instead of with weapons. That’s where Fezzik makes a (Persuasion) check but because of the logical approach he is using, that Fezzik is making an Intelligence (Persuasion) check. Will’s player then has to make an Intelligence (Insight) check to see if there is any BS in Fezzik’s logic. Will’s player finally passes a check and determines that he probably has a better shot doing it Fezzik’s way.
Fezzik specifically decides to do nothing on his first turnand Will charges in and throws some unarmed strikes at the big guy. Fezzik just takes the hits and the DM uses that to make a Constitution (Intimidation) check for his second turn. Will then makes a Grapple attempt and fails, so the DM narrates it that Will hugs him and tries super hard but nada so Will releases the Grapple. There were some unarmed strikes from Fezzik, some Dodge actions from Will. There were some more Charisma checks back and forth during the fight. Fezzik tries a Charisma (Persuasion) to get Will to talk about the mask. Will passes a Charisma (Deception) check in opposition to it. Finally Will’s player has an idea.
He has Will make a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to tumble under Fezzik and rolls a natural 20 + modifiers. Will’s player decides to burn an Action Surge to do another Grapple check. The DM determines that because of the super high (Acrobatics) roll, that Will can make this Grapple check using Dex (Acrobatics) instead of Strength (Athletics). This time it works, and he starts to suffocate Fezzik. Fezzik cannot break free and goes unconscious, but Will’s player makes sure to declare that he makes an Intelligence (Medicine) check to make sure Fezzik is stable before continuing the quest to save Buttercup from the clutches of the Mastermind Rogue, Vizzini.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well no bad then. Usually when i DM and call for persuasion or Intimidation it is set DC no contested against anything.
Seems I was wrong.
Not wrong. That is one very legitimate way to do it. It’s just not the only way to do it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Actually there was not one contest in there. Only legitimate ways to use different ability scores on different checks
Persuasion
When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk.
Having Fezzik roll (Stealth) and (Perception) as direct opposition to Will’s (Perception) and (Stealth) respectively were two direct contests.
Having Fezzik the NPC roll (Persuasion) and (Intimidation) against Will, the PC‘s (Insight) are two more direct contests.
Having Fezzik roll (Persuasion) against Will’s (Deception) is another opposed check.
Grapple checks are by their very nature direct contests. Will made one in the beginning, and then another later. That’s two more. Suffocation takes a minimum of 6 turns. So Will has to make a Grapple check each of those turns to hold on. And Fezzik was making them on his turns too, trying to break the grapple. And with Fezzik’s presumed high Constitution, probably more than 6 turns were needed to suffocate him.
I count no fewer than 19 contested Ability checks (and likely more) in that scenario.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If things are getting heated, then it's probably best that folks step away. Please do not resolve to name calling or personal attacks. I'm glad this was resolved (note, I've edited posts to remove the interaction).
General Reminder from the mods - please place nice folks, it's our birthday and we don't want any tears! (even though it's our birthday, and we will cry if we want to... cry if we want to...)
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
Awesome movie!!!
Thanks guys. This was a really cool and informative thread. Sorry things got so heated.
the answer is that it depends on various elements at play.
In case of social interactions a contested roll doesn't mean an automatic success and failure in most cases. When you look at the Social Interaction part of the book it shows that NPC's have a different state to every single NPC/PC in the world. If someone is hostile then they will not automatically do whatever the player wants. Just because they won the contested roll. The contested roll would merely convince the NPC to be less hostile and somewhat open to the idea presented. Not outright doing whatever the player wants. In social situations these rules are very.... shallow and incomplete in my opinion. I rather use a fluid form of a skill challenge until we ever come up with a way better way of handling stuff like this. However a DM can also handwave all of this and just let a really good roleplay determine how the DM adjucates the outcome. If it is between players, or something of a more simplistic situation. then a contested Bluff, Intimidate or whatever check can be done.
Because it is rather weak as a system overall you get plenty of interpretations on how to handle it in game. RAW is just shit and unbelievable in practice. So some DM's set DC"s that they find reasonable for the situation. Other create the DC by using the passive stat of a character to be contested by an active roll. All valid ways of doing it. However I don't agree with HollowTPM. Given NPC's a chance of failure is how it should be. In fact many great dramatic moments can come from the NPC's failing. Everyone has an off day, or perhaps the guard just doesn't really care about their job and is doing it out of necessity etc. You just need to give it an interesting narrative swing should the NPC fail. If they're important NPC's like a lord of some sort. Then you obviously put the DC much higher to reduce the chance of them failing. And as I said before. The social rules show there are different states that the lord can look upon the PC's. So even if the PC's win their first set of rolls. It'll only make the lord more open to even hearing them out instead of outright giving the PC's whatever the **** they want.
I also don't understand the need to tell the players the DC's or anything. That is optional if you as the DM want to do it. However it shouldn't be mandatory. The players don't need to know how difficult someone is to persuade or how the skill level to anything is. That only leads to more meta-gaming. Just tell the player that what the NPC said comes across as truthful and without flaws of reasoning. And that is the response and relationship they need to roleplay. Knowing that they won the roll with x vs y number is useless additional information.
@crazyhawk. the situation described about being a sexual slave to another PC is a bigger issue at the table. has less to do with using contested dice rolls or not. just because you played with a shitty group that had shitty agreements doesn't mean it can't work for other tables. we have PVP situations that work just fine as long as it falls within the boundaries we agreed upon beforehand. As are the views of "NPC's are just there to be messed with" and "DM doesn't get me to tell me shit" even though your character clearly failed. You and your table has some deeper seated issues that need to be resolved.
@tyybbi997
It is quite common to have monster/npc stat blocks with persuasion, deception and such on them. They've been common since ye olden days. and they can be used against PC's as well as NPC's. They're not exclusive to one or the other. However if you got shitty players that can't roleplay... well... that just means you got bigger problems. Social checks in the earlier editions were quite common as well. and players played it out just fine. so why should it suddenly be any different in 5e? it is really simple. All rules that apply to the PC's also apply to NPC's/Monsters and vice versa.
@brutallyHonestDM
You can't mindcontrol anyone with just social checks. As mentioned above. There are ranges from Liking-Neutral-Hating someone and a few states in between that. So it takes a longer period of time of multiple social interactions and checks to make the needle move. Eventually you'll get to being very well liked and respected. And you can gradually start to indoctrinated people over time to create your own cult. And do the Manson thing if you wanted to go that route. Magical means of influence would just speed up the process. However with various spells it also means the inflicted creature will know the spell is used on them. So once you fail at re-casting it in time. The NPC will have a serious cause for alarm. Where social skill checks are more subtle over longer period of time with a more trusting outcome.
lol Not putting words in your mouth when you literally said that NO they should not be used, that it's not mind control, and then proceeded to say your can't persuade someone to kill their spouse of 60 years. Nobody made you type that, that was all you. We are just saying that premise is ridiculous and that YES you can use those skills just not the extreme that you postulated. If you would have maybe stated that to a degree they should be used as we are, then you wouldn't be presented with those points of view. Your response was an absolute which is just not correct. And yes, social skills are there to make people do what you want, that's why they are skills. Same as athletics is there to do what you want by shoving someone down or perception is there to notice a hidden person, social skills are there for you to be able to actually use them to do what you want. But again, within reason and not to the extremes of which you are citing.
This is a message board to show different points of view and discuss. Nobody is putting words in your mouth as there is this quote thing that's being used that shows what you initially said. You said "Absolutely Not" which if you look up the definition of absolute then you can see where we are coming from. My response was just that, based on RAW, what you stated is incorrect and why. No worries, probably just a poor choice of wording and a very bad example if you are now saying that yes you should be able to use them, but it's not entirely clear as your statements tend to contradict. No worries though, I'm out on this wall of text haha. Have fun!!
You're really missing the point.
I resonded to the OP answering their question based on the parameters they set. Thus my statement was fully on topic and perfectly valid. If the OP wants to come in here and clarify what they meant instead of leaving it open, then I'd gladly change my response to that.
It doesn't matter if what I said didn't conform to what IamSpota, or anyone else, was saying. It is 100% irrelevant. They asked what I said had to do with what they were saying, and I explained to them that I wasn't speaking to them. Pretty simple.
I do not have to respond to other people in the topic, and I do not have to curate it to what they're talking about. As long as I respond to the OP and keep it on topic I am free to say what ever I please despite your feelings on it. And that's exactly what I did.
I was also asked what I meant, and I have now explained it several times that the claims you're making I NEVER said. Yet you keep wanting to tell me I said and meant something else despite the facts to the contrary. So I don't know what to tell you. You're beating a dead horse at this point. You haven't said anything anyone else said that I've already refuted.
Let's move on. This isn't a contest for you to prove you're right. I responded to the topic well within the rules of the forums, and no matter what you want to tell me i actually meant, its not. We're not having a discussion here. You telling me I can't say what I said because no one else was talking about it and telling me what I meant to say isn't a discussion. Its bullying, so drop it.
I already explained how I feel it should "work" since You want to use that phrase. We can discuss that if you wish. Telling me that what I said had nothing to do with what other people said, and how I said it wont fix anything.
To me, it would be better to use storytelling than mechanics to convince players to do/not do something. The mechanics would come into play if the players attempt to contest what they're being told.
I recently saw a campaign where the players were convinced to go in the wrong direction instead of to their intended place all through RP. A player attempted to detect deception but did not detect any (as a contest against the NPC's stats but exposed to the players as a skill check - meaning there was a chance to learn that the charismatic NPC was lying). So, the players took it at the NPC's word and ended up back where they started.
The end result was the same effect of Persuasion without using Persuasion, putting the onus upon the players - never letting them feel like they're out of control in a purely social situation. The realization they were duped was the best thing to see. They first made sure what they were seeing wasn't an illusion or some magical effect before it became clear they were deceived.
To me, that makes the players feel what it must be like for a persuaded NPC - feeling like it's their own decision - rather than relying on d20s to force a situation.
Yet... in D&D, the only wrong way to play is where nobody is having fun.
If players want to submit to the d20 on skill checks against them, let them.
If players don't, find another creative way to convince the players and use skill checks from the players' perspective.
Don't force players to not have fun because "it's the rules". As XGtE once stated in This Is Your Life: "Ideas, not rules." The DM has the choice on how to play the game so everyone has the most fun and not feel like they're cheating nor being cheated.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
You have nothing to apologize for. Debates get heated from time to time, you’re not responsible for my temper. I’m sorry to you that I got so heated.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As a reminder to some of the folks arguing against social/Charisma skills functioning akin to Mind Control: the DM decides when a player rolls a check. Not the player.
If, as per a prior example, the player walks up to an innkeeper and says "Hey, this is a nice inn! You should give it to me!", and rolls what he fondly imagines is a Persuasion check? The DM is perfectly entitled to respond "The jovial old innkeeper laughs off your demand, instead simply saying 'yes, it is nice, isn't it? Been in my family for five generations, I'm proud of what we've built here!'"
When the player tries to report their Persuasion attempt, you simply say "I didn't ask you for a Persuasion roll" and move on with the game. If they get snippy, explain that ability checks are for situations on the edge where both success and failure are possible, and stupid asks such as 'make the innkeeper give up his inn' are not worth dignifying with a roll. This is even more obvious when one spins it the other way - a DM with a player giving her guff can say:
"All right. The next time a beggar manages to roll a high Persuasion check when asking you for alms, you have to give up all of your gear and magical equipment to that beggar. What? You're outraged, your character would never do that no matter what a beggar rolled? I am in complete agreement, your character is a well-known miser and treasureholic. They'd never give a single copper piece to a beggar...just like an innkeeper whose entire livelihood is the inn that his family has built over generations would never give it up to a total stranger who walked in off the street and made silly little demands for it no matter what your shiny math rock there says. Now sit down, shut up, stop arguing with me, and remember that you roll when I dang well say you roll, not whenever you feel like poking holes in our story."
Please do not contact or message me.
Again I never said those things. The point you are making is exactly what I said and been saying. I've said over and over and over SOCIAL SKILLS ARE MEANT TO BE AIDS TO HELP PEOPLE IN SOCIAL SITUATIONS. THEY ARE NOT TOOLS USED TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO AN ACTION THEY DIDNT WANT TO DO.
That's it. That's all. Why you're all insisting I am advocating that it is mind control, when my first message straight up claimed it wasn't, and that I don't think anyone should ever use them is beyond me. I. Never. Made. Those. Claims.
Proof and point i never brought up Manson. Someone else did. All I did was refute their point. So the fact that you think I'm using is as an argument tells me you didn't even read my post or the context of it. Good gravy y'all.
At this point even I have to say that BrutallyHonestDM has made their point repeatedly and it makes no sense to continue debating it with them. They have made it clear to whom they were responding, and what the intent of their post was about. ‘Nuff said.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting