Hi all,

One of my party members has a character that is exceptionally strong in persuasion and intimidation (+7), and while I’m generally ok with this, last night he used these attempts against another party member. 

Us being all new to D&D, how would you guys handle these checks and results? As I explained to the player, I don’t want to have him make an intimidation check and then the other player is forced to do his will. I don’t want to take away player agency for anyone.

Thanks all

Lots of DMs do not allow any PVP, including skill checks vs each other. 

It all depends on how your table wants to do things. Some players might have fun losing an intimidation check and then having to RP it. Some would hate it.

Not exactly a skill check but last night our sorcerer learned the Slow spell. His player decided to RP having the character "test it out." He asked the cleric, can I test something out on you? Without telling him what. The cleric, a fairly naive sort, said sure... So the sorcerer cast the spell and read out the effects. The cleric's player then started talking very... slowly... (like the sloths in Zootopia) and had us all in stitches. The player had a blast with it and did not mind the spell being cast at him. However, other players might object or get annoyed. It depends on the players, and the table.

Well, that’s a loaded question.

Many are of the opinion that using social Ability checks against other PCs is a hard never ever.

Others are of the opinion that if the DM can have an NPC use those checks against PCs and the players are expected to play along, then it is perfectly reasonable for it to work between PCs too.

Ultimately, the right answer is the one that you and the people you DM for find most agreeable.

I will point out that just because someone is successful at Intimidating someone else, that does not guarantee that the other person will do what the first person wants them to do. Being brave is not about not being scared, it’s about being scared and pressing forward anyway. So it’s more like “Yes, your PC finds them very intimidating, but what do they do about it?” That’s called roleplaying.

The same basically applies to persuasion, just because someone is very persuasive does not guarantee that you believe them, just that you could find no real reason to not believe them. But people often choose to go against logic in favor of instinct. So again, it’s more like “Yes, your PC can find no fault with their highly persuasive argument, but what do they do about that?”

Sorry I could not be more helpful, it’s just that there is no “one size fits all tables” answer.

There are no defined effects for persuasion or intimidation checks used against PCs (whether by a PC or an NPC), so the effect is that it does whatever the (target) player says it does, which can include doing nothing.

If everyone is fairly new it would benefit everyone to have a quick 10 minute aside before starting next session, to go over the concept of PvP (player vs player).

This can include things like you've mentioned, persuasion, intimidation, to the more problematic issues of a player saying along the lines of "while everyone's asleep I steal their gold, lose their shoes, hide their spellbooks, b/c LOLZrofl" to even outright physical or spell attacks between party members. Some groups will be absolutely Fine with that. It's not my idea of fun, and I'm of the opinion that it causes more overall problems. It sorta defeats the co-operative mindset and intent of most RPGs and modules.

So, having that blunt, upfront conversation to set expectations benefits everyone, including the DM. Lay out options, get a consensus, or forbid it outright and defer the players to roleplay with each other only. 

Thank you all!! Your replies are most helpful and have given me some good things to ponder!

I am finding myself just agreeing with IamSposta for most threads these days. 

I could probably just +1, but wanted to reinforce the idea that a successful intimidate (for example) doesn't necessarily mean "run and hide". 

As DMs (and other players) similar to life, we present the external influence. It is up to the person playing the character to then decide how to react to that. A successful intimidate check would make someone feel like they are in danger and that would logically trigger the flight or fight response. But as said there are (at least) two options there. Some people will run, some will fight back. Similarly intimidation can be strength (ie, being fronted by a muscle bound person in a bar) or maybe financially (threatening financial ruin) or harming loved ones. Each of these will have different effects on the same person. So asking how it is taking effect will help people make decisions. 

Same thing with persuade. I have presented professional arguments to people with scientific and anecdotal data - essentially every angle you can think of with overwhelming evidence only to have them say "yeah, but it just doesn't *feel* right". My sister, for example, agrees that Apple phones are the worst fit for her. But she won't buy anything else because they are pretty. I suppose this would equate to a very high DC or a high modifier to an opposed role. Essentially it is up to the person what their DC is or how much the argument effects them. 

I personally am in favour of these sort of rolls because it helps me simulate bad days or catching people at just the right moment. We are rarely in our ideal frame of mind. I do understand that people have very rigid ideas of their fantasy character and are very upset when anything deviates from that. 

I am finding myself just agreeing with IamSposta for most threads these days. 

You are not alone.

Quote from BigLizard >>

 

So no, skills like these should never be used in Player vs. Player situations.  If you want to intimidate another player, role-play it out, if you want to persuade another player, role-play it out, if you want to make him believe your lies, make it a good lie.  Insisting that a player believe a BS story or is forced to react positively towards another player just because he got out rolled to me is the polar opposite of role-playing.  

Sorry - it is a bit of a trigger for me.

I think this is a major issue. I hear this all the time - role play it out - but no one expects a barbarian to roleplay out lifting a door. In ToA the doors weight 1/2 a tonne. You need a combined strength of 20 to open them. One beefy pc can lift it. I didn't send my player out the back to show me he could lift a car to prove his character could lift this fictional door. 
I don't send a player naked into an Ebola factory to prove his paladin is immune to disease. We do this all the time with the physical skills, but with the mental skills we ignore the stats and say that people should role play it. 

I am smart by just about any metric, but I am not 20 intelligence smart. My character might be though. He also sees things that the DM may forget to describe. These things don't cease to exist but are often omitted by a DM because they seem unimportant, but a Sherlock Holmes type character with expertise in investigation/perception would. It is a double standard to insist the mental stats can only be role-played while allowing the physical stats to have  a free pass - and it is against the fact that we are playing a game designed around escapism. I want to play a high charisma character so I can pretend to be that for a while even though my emotional intelligence is well below average (and charisma is probably average). This is no less valid than Steven Hawking playing a Barbarian with 20 strength. If anything I think that more stuff should be rolled. It is annoying to continually see a physical character with dump stats in Cha, Int and Wis coming up with 47 stage intricate battle plans and solving murder plots - because it is the player doing that, not the character. It is cheating as much as lying about what you roll. 

I agree that with any roll you should try and describe about how you are going about it. As I said above intimidation could be physical or physiological. This will have different impacts on different people. Threatening an orphans/street urchins family probably won't have a lot of effect. But to just say don't roll and just role play it is, I think, objectively wrong. 

Sorry - it is a bit of a trigger for me. 

Quote from IamSposta >>

I will point out that just because someone is successful at Intimidating someone else, that does not guarantee that the other person will do what the first person wants them to do.

Quoted for emphasis. Intimidation is not mind control.

If you succeed on a Charisma\Intimidation (or maybe Strength\Intimidation) roll all that happens is that you have convinced the NPC that your character is truly committed to following through on the threat they just made.

I also want to join the "I agree with IamSposta" club. Are there t-shirts? Badges? Hats?

I also want to join the "I agree with IamSposta" club. Are there t-shirts? Badges? Hats?

No but we have a secret handshake.

Whatever youse all do, just don’t start one of those forum cults or anything. I swear I’ll block all of ya if ya do. 😜

I don't think it's ever a good idea to let players just call ability check but definitely not vs other players.    

In general, it's a good idea to have players say what they want to try to do and have the DM call for a check. For example:

PC "I crack my knuckles and grab hilt of my sword and say "easy way or hard way"" with maybe even a  "to attempt to intimidate" thrown in
DM "roll intimidation"

VS

PC "intimidation " (rolls a d20).

If it was me I would:
-Allow 1 PC to try to intimidate another but not allow them to roll anything and allow the other PC to respond any way they like.
-Allow a PC to roll intimidation but just tell the other PC "He is very intimidating, how do you respond".  Without ever taking any agency from the player being intimidated.

I think this goes back to the basics of what an ability check is for! And thinking it through, I've talked myself into the conclusion that I don't think intra-player social ability checks are ever appropriate in a PVP setting, though they could be used for fun RP if both players are up for it.

A player should not be treating "ability checks" as buttons they can push to do things. The DM should call for an ability check when the player says their character does something, and that something has a chance of success and a chance of failure which depends on the character's skill.

So, for example, if the player says "I tell the guard that he has to let us pass or else we'll kill him. Just look at us, we just slaughtered a forestful of orcs, the guard should see we mean business." The DM might decide this would obviously be successful, and say "yep, the guard just saw you slaughter all the orcs, your threats terrify him and he's just gonna let you pass." Or they might say "The guard looks at you and says 'No, I'm an elite queen's guard and we never give in to threats!' as he rings an alarm bell." Or,  if the threat has both a chance of success and a chance of failure, the DM might tell the player to roll Intimidation, and set a DC and give advantage or disadvantage based on the situation, narrating the results based on the roll.

In the case of a PC trying to do this to another player, though, there's a complication - the player is supposed to be the authority on their own character. So, suppose Player 1 says "OK, so my character tells PC#2 to give me the magic item, or else I'll turn him into a toad." It seems inappropriate for the DM to say how PC#2 reacts to this - Player 2 should be the one deciding whether their character gives in, starts a fight, or just ignores the threat. No different than any other social interaction between the PCs. Without an explicit mind-control spell, nobody else should be telling a player what their character is required to do! So it seems to me that the only person who is in a position to decide whether the "intimidation" is obviously successful with no roll needed, obviously a failure with no roll needed, or whether it's intermediate and needs a roll would be the player whose character is being intimidated.

Quote from BigLizard >>

For example, a villain uses persuasion on you to get you to follow him into an ambush where you are attacked.  By what you are describing if that villain is successful in his persuasion check, even if as a player you know its a trap, your DM instructs you that you MUST go because "your character doesn't think its a trap".

That's actually a bit of a problematic situation, because it's quite possible that an NPC is a better liar than the DM -- it's not that PCs should actually be immune to persuasion, it's that players (justifiably) take offense at being fed an obvious lie and being told they think it's true. The problem with the player vs player situation is mostly that it's player vs player, not that it's influence skills per se.

My solution to the player vs player situation is simple: I just don't get involved. If a player wants to make a skill check, they can do it, and it's up to each of the involved players to decide how or if that roll changes their character's behavior (or in the case of insight, it's up to the target to decide what the rolling character figures out).

I don't use Persuasion or Intimidation against my PCs and I don't let them do such things to each other. Role play is role play. I'll describe whether the NPC is imposing or acting in a convincing manner but whether they follow along is up to them.

PVP can be ok IMHO. How do you handle situations where 2 players differ in strategy? For example: We attack through the backdoor (player a) vs the front door (player b)? That's where skill checks are useful. Role playing isn't just good guys vs bad guys, it's also between players. Let the dice decide!

I agree BigLizard. However, the OP mentioned a +7, that's played character.

I feel like the only social skills that should be used player-to-player are deception and insight. Persuasion isn't a spell, it doesn't COMPELL the target to do what you say, so if the target player doesn't think their character would do it, then they won't! Even against NPC's a really good persuasion roll doesn't mean anything if it was something impossible in the first place.

Quote from Yhulths >>

I agree BigLizard. However, the OP mentioned a +7, that's played character.

 Doesn't matter. You can have a +30 to Intimidation and persuasion but it's not going to fly against a PC at my table.