Players regularly think nothing whatsoever of using these exact same skills to try and mind-control NPCs into doing what they want. How many times have we all heard the stories of Ye Olde Spoony Bard making Seduction checks that, with the slightest reflection, are far rapier than the old Love domain ever could be, and which would absolutely cost whoever got Spoon'd their position, standing, existing marriage, or even life? If one is violently opposed to these skills being used on PCs, they may wish to examine how those skills are used in general and establish limits on the power of Charisma checks.
Even beyond that, whether or not a table allows for Charisma checks to be used on/"against" PCs is determined by two factors. 1.) the table's general level of trust between DM and Players, and 2.) the table's willingness to accept outside forces acting on their characters. My current favorite character is a 6 Wisdom artificer; I don't even bother rolling Insight for her most of the time, if somebody says something that's reasonable enough to pass casual scrutiny, Star buys it. A very poor trait in a merchant princess, but there's a reason she doesn't really handle business dealings for her family. Should an enemy critter manage to Charm her, and the DM says "you feel a compulsion to aid this creature in defeating your former allies", I'd be down for roleplaying that. Including the intense guilt and remorse afterwards. After all, that's just how magic works.
I advise that while boundaries should always be respected, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the players make heavy use of charm spells and malicious Charisma checks with their +42 modifiers from the Expertise Inspiration Bard Gai, they shouldn't have too much complaint coming when a diplomancer turns it around on them, hm? Roleplay it - just because the DM says "Black Swanson makes a very convincing point" doesn't mean he's Enslaving Your Mind, it just means nigh-supernatural wit and charm goes both ways.
Yeah, no. the DMs NPCs are there to be messed with. It's their reason to exist. My character is not there for the DM to take over for me. He has NPCs to play if that's what he's feeling like.
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.
Yeah, no. the DMs NPCs are there to be messed with. It's their reason to exist. My character is not there for the DM to take over for me. He has NPCs to play if that's what he's feeling like.
Actually, I disagree with you there. There are limits to how effective social skills can be (especially if you don’t use good roleplaying to back them up) and NPCs as well as PCs have bedrock principles that Persuasion and Seduction often won’t be able to overcome.
Every NPC is an individual. Consider what they really want and the relationship between them and the PC when applying modifiers to decide if social skills will affect them or even ruling flat out that it’s just not gonna happen.
Heh, kinda what I meant. The idea that NPCs are "there to be messed with" is hogwash; if the players are going to accuse me of being evil for attempting to have merchants merch, liars lie, musicians muzish, and so forth? They can handle the world responding in kind.
Important, high-ranking NPCs can be persuaded, deceived, possibly even intimidated, but it's going to be harder. If any two-bit bum could walk up to the Duke of Adventureton and hustle him out of ten thousand platinum, the Duke of Adventureton would not remain in that position for any length of time. A character like that is going to be well trained in all the Charisma checks as well as Insight, and phrases like "the Duke makes a very solid, well-reasoned case; your Insight fails to find any cracks or flaws in his reasoning" is not Enslaving Your Character, it's me saying the Duke won the roll and as a roleplayer, you should try and make the decision your character would make if they were unable to find any obvious flaws in the Duke's words.
Now, some of this comes down to actual charisma, on the parts of both the DM and the players. A highly persuasive, charismatic DM rarely needs to make NPC Charisma rolls; she can just talk the talk and be persuasive, deceptive, or even frightening. But if players are allowed to substitute their character's 18 in Charisma for their IRL 6 - and everyone tells me they should absolutely be allowed to do that, no matter how bad or cringy it makes games - then why is the DM not allowed to do the same?
It's not about unfairly removing the player's agency. It is, in fact, about scrupulous fairness. Players don't get to do things the DM is not allowed to do right back to them. If the players get taken by a huckster, intimidated into mercenary work by a stern guard commander, or swept off their feet by a beautiful Duchess' golden voice? That's all part of the game, and simply the way the story plays out. A DM doesn't tell her players what they do, but she is supposed to be their senses. If those senses say "guy is being truthful/charming/scary"? That's just how the game works.
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.
It’s not about tricking. It’s about narration and roleplay. How is narrating a passed/failed an Insight check any different than narrating any other check?
Telling me that I don't understand something or I get the wrong message is tricking me. Forcing me into some behavior because of it is just that...taking away my agency and playing my character for me. Let's not pretend that failing a check and forcing me to do something leaves me with any agency. failing a check and telling me what I may know is different. It's MY choice however, how I choose to use that information.
The DM never, ever gets to tell me "your character makes this decision". Ever.
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.
So if you fail an insight check against a merchant’s deception check in an attempt to price gouge you a bit, and the DM narrates that you believe the merchant as honest, what?
Or you roll half decent and the DM narrates that you find nothing about the NPC to distrust, but it turns out that the NPC just happened to roll higher and really was lying....
What are you gonna do, Argue, metagame, quit? I don’t understand the problem. That’s precisely what those checks are for.
It's worth noting that players hate losing control of their character regardless of whether it's done by an social skill or by a supernatural power; it's not like players react well to their characters being hit by Dominate Person either. The difference is that social skills are way more common and easy to use than spells.
In general I'm not going to compel players with a social skill, but that doesn't mean it won't have any effects. Mostly I just expect my players to role play it, but if they decide to just ignore the skill I figure it's fair to apply effects to the characters. For example:
Deception: this is mostly just for target numbers; if the PCs try to use Insight, Investigation, or Perception, I'll use their deception as a target, and if the PCs don't roll well enough (I may make the roll for them), they'll uncover false information. If they try to follow up (say, failed Insight, but the player is still suspicious and goes on to try to [Tooltip Not Found]), they get disadvantage.
Intimidation: if they win and the PC still tries to obstruct them, they are treated as Frightened (if combat starts, figure this lasts until the end of the first round of combat -- and note that initiative is an ability check)
Persuasion: if they win and the PC still tries to obstruct them, attempts to do so have disadvantage. In combat, your attacks have disadvantage and their saves against your abilities have advantage; this ends if they target you with an attack or hostile ability.
The more I think about it, if both sides roleplay honestly (the PC or NPC may not actually give in to the seduction attempt because she loves her partner, but she finds the would-be seducer charming and will be inclined to listen more favorably to what they say), you won’t really need hard and fast rules about social skills and agency. The character will just go with how they feel.
What I don’t get is, if an NPC casts fear and a PC fails their saving throw, the DM is expected to say “Your character is frightened” and the Player is expected to roleplay accordingly.
If an NPC makes an Intimidation check and the PC’s Insight doesn’t beat the NPC’s check, why is it wrong for a DM to say “Your character is intimidated?”
I’m failing to grasp why one is okay and the other verboten?
The only one I've seen consistently is Deception vs Insight still being allowed. It can be kind of funny for a game where we all sit at the table and watch as the Rogue goes ahead and hear OOC how they found a bunch of treasure up ahead and pocket it, but when they get back to the party they roll high on Deception so we all have to pretend we don't know they have a pocket full of rubies or whatever.
The only one I've seen consistently is Deception vs Insight still being allowed. It can be kind of funny for a game where we all sit at the table and watch as the Rogue goes ahead and hear OOC how they found a bunch of treasure up ahead and pocket it, but when they get back to the party they roll high on Deception so we all have to pretend we don't know they have a pocket full of rubies or whatever.
Even beyond that, whether or not a table allows for Charisma checks to be used on/"against" PCs is determined by two factors. 1.) the table's general level of trust between DM and Players, and 2.) the table's willingness to accept outside forces acting on their characters.
I advise that while boundaries should always be respected, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yeah, I agree with this. I don't think there's any other "right answer" here than to figure out what works with for your table. I think this thread provides some arguments for both sides and shines some light on why some person may think some way different than you, which is the goal of debate imo. What works for some tables won't work for another, and it's the onus of both the players and the DM to assist in finding that sweet spot.
What does it mean if person A intimidates person B? It means that A convinces B that they are committed to following through on their threat. It doesn't mean that B automatically does what A wants; it just means that B is 100% certain that if they don't do what A wants, they will get hurt. Most of the time, B will do what A wants.
So, if a NPC intimidates a player character, the GM just needs to say "You are convinced that the guard is not bluffing - they are ready and willing to hurt you if you don't comply."
After that, let the player choose their character's actions, and deal with the consequences.
I haven't really had a reason for anyone to try a social check against the PCs yet. However, I think if (when?) the situation occurs, the way I will handle it will be rather straight-forward. For example, the NPC is trying to convince the sorcerer of something that is, well, let's say unlikely. But the NPC has a very high deception check. I would roll it, and then say to the Sorcerer's player, "Joe the NPC rolled a 27 on his deception check. You can roll insight against it if you want." If the Sorcerer then gets a 4 or something, I would fully expect the player to RP being tricked.
It's not about "taking control" of the PC or forcing anything on the player any more than a hit by an enemy monster is "forcing" the player to subtract h.p. from his character. It's about using the die rolls and the rules as a spring board for good RP.
I haven't really had a reason for anyone to try a social check against the PCs yet. However, I think if (when?) the situation occurs, the way I will handle it will be rather straight-forward. For example, the NPC is trying to convince the sorcerer of something that is, well, let's say unlikely. But the NPC has a very high deception check. I would roll it, and then say to the Sorcerer's player, "Joe the NPC rolled a 27 on his deception check. You can roll insight against it if you want." If the Sorcerer then gets a 4 or something, I would fully expect the player to RP being tricked.
It's not about "taking control" of the PC or forcing anything on the player any more than a hit by an enemy monster is "forcing" the player to subtract h.p. from his character. It's about using the die rolls and the rules as a spring board for good RP.
I don't understand rolling a deception check for NPCs, shouldn't the PCs roll a insight check to see if someone is lying with you just having a set DC?
Personally I don't see the need to roll a check against players. If they are threatening a guard it is very easy to just say "Keep this up and you'll end up in the brig for the night" and say the guard places a hand on his sword. No need to roll, let the PCs decide if he is going to give in to the intimidation or ignore it and end up with the consequences.
I haven't really had a reason for anyone to try a social check against the PCs yet. However, I think if (when?) the situation occurs, the way I will handle it will be rather straight-forward. For example, the NPC is trying to convince the sorcerer of something that is, well, let's say unlikely. But the NPC has a very high deception check. I would roll it, and then say to the Sorcerer's player, "Joe the NPC rolled a 27 on his deception check. You can roll insight against it if you want." If the Sorcerer then gets a 4 or something, I would fully expect the player to RP being tricked.
It's not about "taking control" of the PC or forcing anything on the player any more than a hit by an enemy monster is "forcing" the player to subtract h.p. from his character. It's about using the die rolls and the rules as a spring board for good RP.
I don't understand rolling a deception check for NPCs, shouldn't the PCs roll a insight check to see if someone is lying with you just having a set DC?
Personally I don't see the need to roll a check against players. If they are threatening a guard it is very easy to just say "Keep this up and you'll end up in the brig for the night" and say the guard places a hand on his sword. No need to roll, let the PCs decide if he is going to give in to the intimidation or ignore it and end up with the consequences.
I roll it too. So do many other DMs. The guard could roll low, or spike it on any given check just like the PCs.
What I don’t understand is telling the players the result of the intimidation roll?!?
I haven't really had a reason for anyone to try a social check against the PCs yet. However, I think if (when?) the situation occurs, the way I will handle it will be rather straight-forward. For example, the NPC is trying to convince the sorcerer of something that is, well, let's say unlikely. But the NPC has a very high deception check. I would roll it, and then say to the Sorcerer's player, "Joe the NPC rolled a 27 on his deception check. You can roll insight against it if you want." If the Sorcerer then gets a 4 or something, I would fully expect the player to RP being tricked.
It's not about "taking control" of the PC or forcing anything on the player any more than a hit by an enemy monster is "forcing" the player to subtract h.p. from his character. It's about using the die rolls and the rules as a spring board for good RP.
I don't understand rolling a deception check for NPCs, shouldn't the PCs roll a insight check to see if someone is lying with you just having a set DC?
Personally I don't see the need to roll a check against players. If they are threatening a guard it is very easy to just say "Keep this up and you'll end up in the brig for the night" and say the guard places a hand on his sword. No need to roll, let the PCs decide if he is going to give in to the intimidation or ignore it and end up with the consequences.
To your first point, that's only the case if the player actively wants to make a check. Otherwise, their passive insight is the appropriate DC for the NPC's deception check (or it can be a straight contest if the DM wants to call for a check, as in BioWizard's example). But the NPC has ability scores and skill proficiencies just like the PCs do. If they want to do something, it's 100% appropriate to roll for them. Sure, the DM could just arbitrarily pick a number, but that doesn't feel as fair.
To your second point, it's not easy to just say "Keep this up and you'll end up in the brig for the night" in a way that's actually going to convey the right things. If a DM isn't a great actor, they're going to have to say "trust me, this is very intimidating." And if the players say "how intimidating?" the appropriate means of determining that is by rolling. No one gives a second thought to rolling for physical attacks against PCs. I have no idea why anyone would treat social attacks any differently.
No one expects DMs or players to be as good at the things their characters do as the characters are. That's why the roll is important. The NPC is better at intimidation than the DM is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Worth noting?
Players regularly think nothing whatsoever of using these exact same skills to try and mind-control NPCs into doing what they want. How many times have we all heard the stories of Ye Olde Spoony Bard making Seduction checks that, with the slightest reflection, are far rapier than the old Love domain ever could be, and which would absolutely cost whoever got Spoon'd their position, standing, existing marriage, or even life? If one is violently opposed to these skills being used on PCs, they may wish to examine how those skills are used in general and establish limits on the power of Charisma checks.
Even beyond that, whether or not a table allows for Charisma checks to be used on/"against" PCs is determined by two factors. 1.) the table's general level of trust between DM and Players, and 2.) the table's willingness to accept outside forces acting on their characters. My current favorite character is a 6 Wisdom artificer; I don't even bother rolling Insight for her most of the time, if somebody says something that's reasonable enough to pass casual scrutiny, Star buys it. A very poor trait in a merchant princess, but there's a reason she doesn't really handle business dealings for her family. Should an enemy critter manage to Charm her, and the DM says "you feel a compulsion to aid this creature in defeating your former allies", I'd be down for roleplaying that. Including the intense guilt and remorse afterwards. After all, that's just how magic works.
I advise that while boundaries should always be respected, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If the players make heavy use of charm spells and malicious Charisma checks with their +42 modifiers from the Expertise Inspiration Bard Gai, they shouldn't have too much complaint coming when a diplomancer turns it around on them, hm? Roleplay it - just because the DM says "Black Swanson makes a very convincing point" doesn't mean he's Enslaving Your Mind, it just means nigh-supernatural wit and charm goes both ways.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, no. the DMs NPCs are there to be messed with. It's their reason to exist. My character is not there for the DM to take over for me. He has NPCs to play if that's what he's feeling like.
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
And does it work? In my experience important NPCs are no more susceptible to persuasion than PCs.
Actually, I disagree with you there. There are limits to how effective social skills can be (especially if you don’t use good roleplaying to back them up) and NPCs as well as PCs have bedrock principles that Persuasion and Seduction often won’t be able to overcome.
Every NPC is an individual. Consider what they really want and the relationship between them and the PC when applying modifiers to decide if social skills will affect them or even ruling flat out that it’s just not gonna happen.
Heh, kinda what I meant. The idea that NPCs are "there to be messed with" is hogwash; if the players are going to accuse me of being evil for attempting to have merchants merch, liars lie, musicians muzish, and so forth? They can handle the world responding in kind.
Important, high-ranking NPCs can be persuaded, deceived, possibly even intimidated, but it's going to be harder. If any two-bit bum could walk up to the Duke of Adventureton and hustle him out of ten thousand platinum, the Duke of Adventureton would not remain in that position for any length of time. A character like that is going to be well trained in all the Charisma checks as well as Insight, and phrases like "the Duke makes a very solid, well-reasoned case; your Insight fails to find any cracks or flaws in his reasoning" is not Enslaving Your Character, it's me saying the Duke won the roll and as a roleplayer, you should try and make the decision your character would make if they were unable to find any obvious flaws in the Duke's words.
Now, some of this comes down to actual charisma, on the parts of both the DM and the players. A highly persuasive, charismatic DM rarely needs to make NPC Charisma rolls; she can just talk the talk and be persuasive, deceptive, or even frightening. But if players are allowed to substitute their character's 18 in Charisma for their IRL 6 - and everyone tells me they should absolutely be allowed to do that, no matter how bad or cringy it makes games - then why is the DM not allowed to do the same?
It's not about unfairly removing the player's agency. It is, in fact, about scrupulous fairness. Players don't get to do things the DM is not allowed to do right back to them. If the players get taken by a huckster, intimidated into mercenary work by a stern guard commander, or swept off their feet by a beautiful Duchess' golden voice? That's all part of the game, and simply the way the story plays out. A DM doesn't tell her players what they do, but she is supposed to be their senses. If those senses say "guy is being truthful/charming/scary"? That's just how the game works.
Please do not contact or message me.
It’s not about tricking. It’s about narration and roleplay. How is narrating a passed/failed an Insight check any different than narrating any other check?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Telling me that I don't understand something or I get the wrong message is tricking me. Forcing me into some behavior because of it is just that...taking away my agency and playing my character for me. Let's not pretend that failing a check and forcing me to do something leaves me with any agency. failing a check and telling me what I may know is different. It's MY choice however, how I choose to use that information.
The DM never, ever gets to tell me "your character makes this decision". Ever.
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
So if you fail an insight check against a merchant’s deception check in an attempt to price gouge you a bit, and the DM narrates that you believe the merchant as honest, what?
Or you roll half decent and the DM narrates that you find nothing about the NPC to distrust, but it turns out that the NPC just happened to roll higher and really was lying....
What are you gonna do, Argue, metagame, quit? I don’t understand the problem. That’s precisely what those checks are for.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's worth noting that players hate losing control of their character regardless of whether it's done by an social skill or by a supernatural power; it's not like players react well to their characters being hit by Dominate Person either. The difference is that social skills are way more common and easy to use than spells.
In general I'm not going to compel players with a social skill, but that doesn't mean it won't have any effects. Mostly I just expect my players to role play it, but if they decide to just ignore the skill I figure it's fair to apply effects to the characters. For example:
The more I think about it, if both sides roleplay honestly (the PC or NPC may not actually give in to the seduction attempt because she loves her partner, but she finds the would-be seducer charming and will be inclined to listen more favorably to what they say), you won’t really need hard and fast rules about social skills and agency. The character will just go with how they feel.
What I don’t get is, if an NPC casts fear and a PC fails their saving throw, the DM is expected to say “Your character is frightened” and the Player is expected to roleplay accordingly.
If an NPC makes an Intimidation check and the PC’s Insight doesn’t beat the NPC’s check, why is it wrong for a DM to say “Your character is intimidated?”
I’m failing to grasp why one is okay and the other verboten?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
The only one I've seen consistently is Deception vs Insight still being allowed. It can be kind of funny for a game where we all sit at the table and watch as the Rogue goes ahead and hear OOC how they found a bunch of treasure up ahead and pocket it, but when they get back to the party they roll high on Deception so we all have to pretend we don't know they have a pocket full of rubies or whatever.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I have no problem with that.
Yeah, I agree with this. I don't think there's any other "right answer" here than to figure out what works with for your table. I think this thread provides some arguments for both sides and shines some light on why some person may think some way different than you, which is the goal of debate imo. What works for some tables won't work for another, and it's the onus of both the players and the DM to assist in finding that sweet spot.
As always, begin and end with the fiction.
What does it mean if person A intimidates person B? It means that A convinces B that they are committed to following through on their threat. It doesn't mean that B automatically does what A wants; it just means that B is 100% certain that if they don't do what A wants, they will get hurt. Most of the time, B will do what A wants.
So, if a NPC intimidates a player character, the GM just needs to say "You are convinced that the guard is not bluffing - they are ready and willing to hurt you if you don't comply."
After that, let the player choose their character's actions, and deal with the consequences.
Wow, lots of food for thought on this thread.
I haven't really had a reason for anyone to try a social check against the PCs yet. However, I think if (when?) the situation occurs, the way I will handle it will be rather straight-forward. For example, the NPC is trying to convince the sorcerer of something that is, well, let's say unlikely. But the NPC has a very high deception check. I would roll it, and then say to the Sorcerer's player, "Joe the NPC rolled a 27 on his deception check. You can roll insight against it if you want." If the Sorcerer then gets a 4 or something, I would fully expect the player to RP being tricked.
It's not about "taking control" of the PC or forcing anything on the player any more than a hit by an enemy monster is "forcing" the player to subtract h.p. from his character. It's about using the die rolls and the rules as a spring board for good RP.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I don't understand rolling a deception check for NPCs, shouldn't the PCs roll a insight check to see if someone is lying with you just having a set DC?
Personally I don't see the need to roll a check against players. If they are threatening a guard it is very easy to just say "Keep this up and you'll end up in the brig for the night" and say the guard places a hand on his sword. No need to roll, let the PCs decide if he is going to give in to the intimidation or ignore it and end up with the consequences.
I roll it too. So do many other DMs. The guard could roll low, or spike it on any given check just like the PCs.
What I don’t understand is telling the players the result of the intimidation roll?!?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
To your first point, that's only the case if the player actively wants to make a check. Otherwise, their passive insight is the appropriate DC for the NPC's deception check (or it can be a straight contest if the DM wants to call for a check, as in BioWizard's example). But the NPC has ability scores and skill proficiencies just like the PCs do. If they want to do something, it's 100% appropriate to roll for them. Sure, the DM could just arbitrarily pick a number, but that doesn't feel as fair.
To your second point, it's not easy to just say "Keep this up and you'll end up in the brig for the night" in a way that's actually going to convey the right things. If a DM isn't a great actor, they're going to have to say "trust me, this is very intimidating." And if the players say "how intimidating?" the appropriate means of determining that is by rolling. No one gives a second thought to rolling for physical attacks against PCs. I have no idea why anyone would treat social attacks any differently.
No one expects DMs or players to be as good at the things their characters do as the characters are. That's why the roll is important. The NPC is better at intimidation than the DM is.