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?
You can do it that way as well, but IME it's easiest to avoid metagaming if the DM just makes the rolls behind a screen, in which case it doesn't matter whether it's deception vs passive insight or an active insight check.
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?
You can do it that way as well, but IME it's easiest to avoid metagaming if the DM just makes the rolls behind a screen, in which case it doesn't matter whether it's deception vs passive insight or an active insight check.
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.
Except it really isn't that hard to answer "How intimidating" If you are describing the actions of a NPC clearly, most PCs would get a clear indication. Rolling a die isn't going to make the guard a better intimidation than the DM's words, it's going to add randomness to the NPCs intimidation. So while you say this is better, all you've done is given the NPC the chance of complete failure by dice when you as the DM wanted this to be a moment of tension. So in my example, it really won't be good for a simple guard to look like a buffoon when he rolls a 5 on his intimidation. It is much better for the PCs in their own mind to develop and decide how they interpret the guards words and actions instead of a die roll telling them "Jk he's acutally not going to act on what he just said even though he's a town guard." But for me as a DM, I too also use the how the PCs describe their actions to influence if they also need to roll.
Yes the people in the game are better than us at doing things sometimes, but relying on a roll to prove that leaves a chance for the opposite to happen. The roll is not important to make NPCs or PCs better than they are in real life. The roll is there is determine random outcomes. Not make someone a better liar, or look scary.
Except it really isn't that hard to answer "How intimidating" If you are describing the actions of a NPC clearly, most PCs would get a clear indication.
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.
Except it really isn't that hard to answer "How intimidating" If you are describing the actions of a NPC clearly, most PCs would get a clear indication. Rolling a die isn't going to make the guard a better intimidation than the DM's words, it's going to add randomness to the NPCs intimidation. So while you say this is better, all you've done is given the NPC the chance of complete failure by dice when you as the DM wanted this to be a moment of tension. So in my example, it really won't be good for a simple guard to look like a buffoon when he rolls a 5 on his intimidation. It is much better for the PCs in their own mind to develop and decide how they interpret the guards words and actions instead of a die roll telling them "Jk he's acutally not going to act on what he just said even though he's a town guard." But for me as a DM, I too also use the how the PCs describe their actions to influence if they also need to roll.
Yes the people in the game are better than us at doing things sometimes, but relying on a roll to prove that leaves a chance for the opposite to happen. The roll is not important to make NPCs or PCs better than they are in real life. The roll is there is determine random outcomes. Not make someone a better liar, or look scary.
If we’re not interested in letting dice determine how successful a character is at doing something, why are we playing the game?
What I don’t understand is telling the players the result of the intimidation roll?!?
How else is the player supposed to know that the NPC has a very high skill in something and rolled high in it? Verbal description only takes you so far.
Let's think about what happens when the players lie to an NPC and the DM calls for a deception check. You called for the check because you determined that there was a chance of success or failure, and there was no a priori way to fairly assign success or failure. So you asked for a roll, which means you're going to let the dice determine the outcome, weighted by the character's proficiency at the deception skill. The idea being, although the player may not be perfect at conveying the lie, the character has the ability to be convincing because the character has skills the player almost certainly doesn't. The roll happens, and as a DM, you see the results of the roll.
At that point, everyone at the table will (presumably) unanimously assume that you are going to RP the results of the roll. If the player rolled really high, you're going to have the NPC believe the lie, because that's what the outcome of the roll determined. Your RP of that NPC, going forward, will be based on the roll. And everyone trusts you to do that. As a DM, you know what the players are saying is a lie, and they know you know it, so the NPC's "player" knows it, but everyone trusts you to RP fairly and realistically given the results of the roll.
Now we flip it around. The player knows or suspects the NPC is lying, but the NPC has a very high score with deception, and you roll that nat 20 + 7 for a 27 on the deception. This means that the player is now in the position of the DM. He may know the NPC is lying, but his character doesn't, and by the results of the roll, he should RP that his character believes this. I would hope that we are playing with people we can trust to do this as fairly as they can trust us to do when the DM is in this position. But you'd have to tell the player the results, for him (or her) to know that this is where the RP should probably go. I guess you don't have to say the total number on the roll, but rather just say to the player, 'Your character finds this story VERY convincing." I just prefer to tell the player the result and let him or her RP how convincing they find the argument. Again, I trust the players in my group to do this fairly and not to "cheat" by pretending their low-Insight character and see right through the lies of a 20+ deception check.
What I don’t understand is telling the players the result of the intimidation roll?!?
How else is the player supposed to know that the NPC has a very high skill in something and rolled high in it? Verbal description only takes you so far.
Let's think about what happens when the players like to an NPC and the DM calls for a deception check. You called for the check because you determined that there was a chance of success or failure, and there was no a priori way to fairly assign success or failure. So you asked for a roll, which means you're going to let the dice determine the outcome, weighted by the character's proficiency at the deception skill. The idea being, although the player may not be perfect at conveying the lie, the character has the ability to be convincing because the character has skills the player almost certainly doesn't. The roll happens, and as a DM, you see the results of the roll.
At that point, everyone at the table will (presumably) unanimously assume that you are going to RP the results of the roll. If the player rolled really high, you're going to have the NPC believe the lie, because that's what the outcome of the roll determined. Your RP of that NPC, going forward, will be based on the roll. And everyone trusts you to do that. As a DM, you know what the players are saying is a lie, and they know you know it, so the NPC's "player" knows it, but everyone trusts you to RP fairly and realistically given the results of the roll.
Now we flip it around. The player knows or suspects the NPC is lying, but the NPC has a very high score with deception, and you roll that nat 20 + 7 for a 27 on the deception. This means that the player is now in the position of the DM. He may know the NPC is lying, but his character doesn't, and by the results of the roll, he should RP that his character believes this. I would hope that we are playing with people we can trust to do this as fairly as they can trust us to do when the DM is in this position. But you'd have to tell the player the results, for him (or her) to know that this is where the RP should probably go. I guess you don't have to say the total number on the roll, but rather just say to the player, 'Your character finds this story VERY convincing." I just prefer to tell the player the result and let him or her RP how convincing they find the argument. Again, I trust the players in my group to do this fairly and not to "cheat" by pretending their low-Insight character and see right through the lies of a 20+ deception check.
I prefer to not even let them know if I am rolling Deception or Persuasion for the NPC. I like to keep the mystery alive. If I tell them how high the NPC rolled on a Deception check, then they know it was Deception. If I just narrate the result after the Player tells me the total of their character’s check, then the Players don’t know if they failed the check, passed and still believe, or even if they we’re deceived or persuaded. It keeps the mystery alive and increases verisimilitude IMO.
Well, we are talking about a case in which the players, in particular, would be inclined to disbelieve the NPC (or maybe to not be intimidated by them). That's the only reason you are rolling the Deception/Intimidation/etc. check in the first place, right? If either the NPC is blatantly lying and no one would possibly believe it, there is no roll. And if as a DM you are able to RP convincingly and not just the PCs, but their players, believe you, there is no roll. But if you are having the NPC do something that the players would probably not find convincing as players, but it is uncertain whether the character was successfully snowed, then you roll the dice. At this point, the players need some direction -- was my character snowed or not? You aren't going to snow the player either way... but they will need some guidance on how to RP their response, based on how convincing, not the DM was to them, but the NPC was to their character. That's what the roll is for, no?
So by telling them the roll, the players have guidance as to how their character would probably see the situation. No matter how good a RPer you are, that guidance is helpful in directing the future RP.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
Absolutely! I use passive insight initially and let the players know if they would think the NPC is being shady or not based on the NPC's roll. But absolutely use skills against players, same as attacks lol.
The way to do the BioWizard "This was the number" thing for tables that A.) don't roleplay well, or B.) don't tolerate Deception well, is to avoid calling out the 27 as Deception. Instead, call it a Persuasion roll even though you rolled Deception. If you're the sort to report numbers like that, saying "the NPC bard rolled 27 on a Persuasion check. He's absolutely confident as he delivers his message, with not a single discernible shred of doubt in his words. He gives you this information, and you can easily tell he believes every word and furthermore is better than I am at selling it" allows the DM to give the players the information their character's senses would give them, which is the DM's job. The fact that their senses are lying to them because somebody's successfully playing reindeer games? Irrelevant. You'd 'lie' to your players if there was an illusion covering a pit trap in a dungeon and never feel bad; social illusions aren't any substantially different than magical illusions. If they didn't hit their Insight mark, passively or actively, then unless something else gives them a reason to doubt, there's no reason the DM shouldn't do what she has to in order to give the players the information their senses would give them.
Remember - it's the DM's job to describe what the characters see, hear, and feel. Insight is listed as a "Sense" on the character sheet, right there with Perception, Darkvision, and the rest. Using Persuasion/Deception vs. Insight in social situations is not really any different from using Stealth vs. Perception in combat situations. Nobody would cry foul if the DM determined that a critter rolled high enough Stealth to conceal itself on the battlefield and ambush a player after initiative start. Why should we complain about Persuasion/Deception?
The case of 'Seduction' is obviously murkier, but to be fair 'Seduction' isn't a thing in 5e beyond memes. You'd either roll Persuasion or straight Charisma, and in either case it'd be best to have ensured before game time, out of character, that the table is fine with Smutnanigans before people start vamping on each other. Some tables find the occasional IC flirting fun. Some tables take their romantic stories as seriously as their adventurous ones; if somebody doesn't end up married by the end of the campaign it's a missed goal. And of course, some tables never want to deal with that shit ever again.
I'll keep saying it - this is a read-the-room, table-by-table issue. I have no issue with the DM 'lying' to me because his NPC out-Deceived my Insight, especially if my Insight is hilariously low. I have no issue with the DM saying "this guy rolled 34 on his Persuasion - I can't convey that level of wooing, but assume that the NPC is making one hell of a case for taking on this job for him right now" and rolling with that. Hell, I have no issue with being Charmed or even Dominated by critters - if I fail my save, that's just what the spell does. I know the DM's not trying to hose me in specific, he's just playing the monsters the way they'd play. I expect him to respect what my spells do when I cast them on his critters, it's only fair I return the same courtesy to him. Most of my characters would be mortified by their failure of will and potentially even carry lingering scars of the event if they caused significant damage to their allies while bamboozled, because that's just good roleplaying.
Somebody in Crazyhawk's shoes, who's had a terrible experience and has a violent aversion to that sort of thing? I wouldn't use those monsters as their DM, or if I did I'd target a different PC. because that's how that table works, and recognizing that it's different than mine is important.
What I don’t understand is telling the players the result of the intimidation roll?!?
How else is the player supposed to know that the NPC has a very high skill in something and rolled high in it? Verbal description only takes you so far.
Let's think about what happens when the players like to an NPC and the DM calls for a deception check. You called for the check because you determined that there was a chance of success or failure, and there was no a priori way to fairly assign success or failure. So you asked for a roll, which means you're going to let the dice determine the outcome, weighted by the character's proficiency at the deception skill. The idea being, although the player may not be perfect at conveying the lie, the character has the ability to be convincing because the character has skills the player almost certainly doesn't. The roll happens, and as a DM, you see the results of the roll.
At that point, everyone at the table will (presumably) unanimously assume that you are going to RP the results of the roll. If the player rolled really high, you're going to have the NPC believe the lie, because that's what the outcome of the roll determined. Your RP of that NPC, going forward, will be based on the roll. And everyone trusts you to do that. As a DM, you know what the players are saying is a lie, and they know you know it, so the NPC's "player" knows it, but everyone trusts you to RP fairly and realistically given the results of the roll.
Now we flip it around. The player knows or suspects the NPC is lying, but the NPC has a very high score with deception, and you roll that nat 20 + 7 for a 27 on the deception. This means that the player is now in the position of the DM. He may know the NPC is lying, but his character doesn't, and by the results of the roll, he should RP that his character believes this. I would hope that we are playing with people we can trust to do this as fairly as they can trust us to do when the DM is in this position. But you'd have to tell the player the results, for him (or her) to know that this is where the RP should probably go. I guess you don't have to say the total number on the roll, but rather just say to the player, 'Your character finds this story VERY convincing." I just prefer to tell the player the result and let him or her RP how convincing they find the argument. Again, I trust the players in my group to do this fairly and not to "cheat" by pretending their low-Insight character and see right through the lies of a 20+ deception check.
I prefer to not even let them know if I am rolling Deception or Persuasion for the NPC. I like to keep the mystery alive. If I tell them how high the NPC rolled on a Deception check, then they know it was Deception. If I just narrate the result after the Player tells me the total of their character’s check, then the Players don’t know if they failed the check, passed and still believe, or even if they we’re deceived or persuaded. It keeps the mystery alive and increases verisimilitude IMO.
Hmm. Interesting. Never thought of doing it that way. Thanks.
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.
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.
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.
Who’s talking about killing families and giving away inns?!?
I’m talking about a merchant charging 500gp for a common magic item should only cost 400gp.
I’m talking about when the PCs are chasing a villain through some twisting alleyways and come across someone who says “They went thata way!”
I’m talking about when the BBE tries to send a lieutenant to trick the PCs into trusting them by pretending to defect.
I don't remember quoting you or ever responding to anything you said. This is an open form with many conversations going on. So who is talking about it? I am.
Persuasion is not a mind control spell. End of discussion. It's a tool to help guide people who are on the fence about a decision they want to make. You can take it or leave it.
Per suasion is not a mind control spell. End of discussion. It's a tool to help guide people who are on the fence about a decision they want to make. You can take it or leave it.
You seem to be attacking a straw man no-one has proposed. The question for this thread is whether they should work on PCs, not what they should do in general.
Per suasion is not a mind control spell. End of discussion. It's a tool to help guide people who are on the fence about a decision they want to make. You can take it or leave it.
You seem to be attacking a straw man no-one has proposed. The question for this thread is whether they should work on PCs, not what they should do in general.
I answered that and gave my reasoning as to why, which you'd know if you went up a few posts. To which someone responded to me so I responded back. I know "strawman argument" and "gaslighting" are popular things people fall to when they have nothing else to say. But I have a huge feeling you don't know what that term is.
Again this is an open forum with many conversations going on. My responses was to the OP, not you or anyone else. You can decide to engage in that if you wish, but there's no need to be so confrontational.
Should it "work" on players? No it shouldn't. It shouldn't "work" on anyone. Its not a mind control spell. That's my opinion to the OP and if you want to discuss it further we can. No need to try and get all personal.
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.
Completely agree with your reasoning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can do it that way as well, but IME it's easiest to avoid metagaming if the DM just makes the rolls behind a screen, in which case it doesn't matter whether it's deception vs passive insight or an active insight check.
This^^^
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Except it really isn't that hard to answer "How intimidating" If you are describing the actions of a NPC clearly, most PCs would get a clear indication. Rolling a die isn't going to make the guard a better intimidation than the DM's words, it's going to add randomness to the NPCs intimidation. So while you say this is better, all you've done is given the NPC the chance of complete failure by dice when you as the DM wanted this to be a moment of tension. So in my example, it really won't be good for a simple guard to look like a buffoon when he rolls a 5 on his intimidation. It is much better for the PCs in their own mind to develop and decide how they interpret the guards words and actions instead of a die roll telling them "Jk he's acutally not going to act on what he just said even though he's a town guard." But for me as a DM, I too also use the how the PCs describe their actions to influence if they also need to roll.
Yes the people in the game are better than us at doing things sometimes, but relying on a roll to prove that leaves a chance for the opposite to happen. The roll is not important to make NPCs or PCs better than they are in real life. The roll is there is determine random outcomes. Not make someone a better liar, or look scary.
Of course, you can lie.
If we’re not interested in letting dice determine how successful a character is at doing something, why are we playing the game?
Agreed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
How else is the player supposed to know that the NPC has a very high skill in something and rolled high in it? Verbal description only takes you so far.
Let's think about what happens when the players lie to an NPC and the DM calls for a deception check. You called for the check because you determined that there was a chance of success or failure, and there was no a priori way to fairly assign success or failure. So you asked for a roll, which means you're going to let the dice determine the outcome, weighted by the character's proficiency at the deception skill. The idea being, although the player may not be perfect at conveying the lie, the character has the ability to be convincing because the character has skills the player almost certainly doesn't. The roll happens, and as a DM, you see the results of the roll.
At that point, everyone at the table will (presumably) unanimously assume that you are going to RP the results of the roll. If the player rolled really high, you're going to have the NPC believe the lie, because that's what the outcome of the roll determined. Your RP of that NPC, going forward, will be based on the roll. And everyone trusts you to do that. As a DM, you know what the players are saying is a lie, and they know you know it, so the NPC's "player" knows it, but everyone trusts you to RP fairly and realistically given the results of the roll.
Now we flip it around. The player knows or suspects the NPC is lying, but the NPC has a very high score with deception, and you roll that nat 20 + 7 for a 27 on the deception. This means that the player is now in the position of the DM. He may know the NPC is lying, but his character doesn't, and by the results of the roll, he should RP that his character believes this. I would hope that we are playing with people we can trust to do this as fairly as they can trust us to do when the DM is in this position. But you'd have to tell the player the results, for him (or her) to know that this is where the RP should probably go. I guess you don't have to say the total number on the roll, but rather just say to the player, 'Your character finds this story VERY convincing." I just prefer to tell the player the result and let him or her RP how convincing they find the argument. Again, I trust the players in my group to do this fairly and not to "cheat" by pretending their low-Insight character and see right through the lies of a 20+ deception check.
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 prefer to not even let them know if I am rolling Deception or Persuasion for the NPC. I like to keep the mystery alive. If I tell them how high the NPC rolled on a Deception check, then they know it was Deception. If I just narrate the result after the Player tells me the total of their character’s check, then the Players don’t know if they failed the check, passed and still believe, or even if they we’re deceived or persuaded. It keeps the mystery alive and increases verisimilitude IMO.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Well, we are talking about a case in which the players, in particular, would be inclined to disbelieve the NPC (or maybe to not be intimidated by them). That's the only reason you are rolling the Deception/Intimidation/etc. check in the first place, right? If either the NPC is blatantly lying and no one would possibly believe it, there is no roll. And if as a DM you are able to RP convincingly and not just the PCs, but their players, believe you, there is no roll. But if you are having the NPC do something that the players would probably not find convincing as players, but it is uncertain whether the character was successfully snowed, then you roll the dice. At this point, the players need some direction -- was my character snowed or not? You aren't going to snow the player either way... but they will need some guidance on how to RP their response, based on how convincing, not the DM was to them, but the NPC was to their character. That's what the roll is for, no?
So by telling them the roll, the players have guidance as to how their character would probably see the situation. No matter how good a RPer you are, that guidance is helpful in directing the future 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.
Absolutely! I use passive insight initially and let the players know if they would think the NPC is being shady or not based on the NPC's roll. But absolutely use skills against players, same as attacks lol.
The way to do the BioWizard "This was the number" thing for tables that A.) don't roleplay well, or B.) don't tolerate Deception well, is to avoid calling out the 27 as Deception. Instead, call it a Persuasion roll even though you rolled Deception. If you're the sort to report numbers like that, saying "the NPC bard rolled 27 on a Persuasion check. He's absolutely confident as he delivers his message, with not a single discernible shred of doubt in his words. He gives you this information, and you can easily tell he believes every word and furthermore is better than I am at selling it" allows the DM to give the players the information their character's senses would give them, which is the DM's job. The fact that their senses are lying to them because somebody's successfully playing reindeer games? Irrelevant. You'd 'lie' to your players if there was an illusion covering a pit trap in a dungeon and never feel bad; social illusions aren't any substantially different than magical illusions. If they didn't hit their Insight mark, passively or actively, then unless something else gives them a reason to doubt, there's no reason the DM shouldn't do what she has to in order to give the players the information their senses would give them.
Remember - it's the DM's job to describe what the characters see, hear, and feel. Insight is listed as a "Sense" on the character sheet, right there with Perception, Darkvision, and the rest. Using Persuasion/Deception vs. Insight in social situations is not really any different from using Stealth vs. Perception in combat situations. Nobody would cry foul if the DM determined that a critter rolled high enough Stealth to conceal itself on the battlefield and ambush a player after initiative start. Why should we complain about Persuasion/Deception?
The case of 'Seduction' is obviously murkier, but to be fair 'Seduction' isn't a thing in 5e beyond memes. You'd either roll Persuasion or straight Charisma, and in either case it'd be best to have ensured before game time, out of character, that the table is fine with Smutnanigans before people start vamping on each other. Some tables find the occasional IC flirting fun. Some tables take their romantic stories as seriously as their adventurous ones; if somebody doesn't end up married by the end of the campaign it's a missed goal. And of course, some tables never want to deal with that shit ever again.
I'll keep saying it - this is a read-the-room, table-by-table issue. I have no issue with the DM 'lying' to me because his NPC out-Deceived my Insight, especially if my Insight is hilariously low. I have no issue with the DM saying "this guy rolled 34 on his Persuasion - I can't convey that level of wooing, but assume that the NPC is making one hell of a case for taking on this job for him right now" and rolling with that. Hell, I have no issue with being Charmed or even Dominated by critters - if I fail my save, that's just what the spell does. I know the DM's not trying to hose me in specific, he's just playing the monsters the way they'd play. I expect him to respect what my spells do when I cast them on his critters, it's only fair I return the same courtesy to him. Most of my characters would be mortified by their failure of will and potentially even carry lingering scars of the event if they caused significant damage to their allies while bamboozled, because that's just good roleplaying.
Somebody in Crazyhawk's shoes, who's had a terrible experience and has a violent aversion to that sort of thing? I wouldn't use those monsters as their DM, or if I did I'd target a different PC. because that's how that table works, and recognizing that it's different than mine is important.
Please do not contact or message me.
Hmm. Interesting. Never thought of doing it that way. Thanks.
Absolutely not.
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.
Who’s talking about killing families and giving away inns?!?
I’m talking about a merchant charging 500gp for a common magic item should only cost 400gp.
I’m talking about when the PCs are chasing a villain through some twisting alleyways and come across someone who says “They went thata way!”
I’m talking about when the BBE tries to send a lieutenant to trick the PCs into trusting them by pretending to defect.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don't remember quoting you or ever responding to anything you said. This is an open form with many conversations going on. So who is talking about it? I am.
Persuasion is not a mind control spell. End of discussion. It's a tool to help guide people who are on the fence about a decision they want to make. You can take it or leave it.
You seem to be attacking a straw man no-one has proposed. The question for this thread is whether they should work on PCs, not what they should do in general.
I answered that and gave my reasoning as to why, which you'd know if you went up a few posts. To which someone responded to me so I responded back. I know "strawman argument" and "gaslighting" are popular things people fall to when they have nothing else to say. But I have a huge feeling you don't know what that term is.
Again this is an open forum with many conversations going on. My responses was to the OP, not you or anyone else. You can decide to engage in that if you wish, but there's no need to be so confrontational.
Should it "work" on players? No it shouldn't. It shouldn't "work" on anyone. Its not a mind control spell. That's my opinion to the OP and if you want to discuss it further we can. No need to try and get all personal.
Completely agree with your reasoning.