last night I was on session 3 of my first DM game. At one point one of the character had a private discussion with a NPC. Another player got pissed because he wasn’t part of the conversation so he rolled intimidation on the Player across the table to Know what was talked about.
Even if he rolled around 17, I turned to the target player to see if he would get intimidated. He said no. The intimidating player got really frustrated saying that he rolled high enough.
Never seeing this kind of situation before, what are the rules or general thoughts on PC intimidating other PC?
Player vs player intimidation, both roll a d20, first player adds his intimidation bonus, second adds his wisdom bonus. If you don want the first player to know, tell him the game doesn't revolve around him, as a dm you have that say.
Use of skills, who decides when to make a roll and what for is something that has prompted much discussion.
Under intimidation it states: "When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check"
To me the wording I have highlighted in bold is really important here - it should always be the DMs decision of whether a dice roll is needed for something or not.
As for using social skills on other player characters to force them into acting a certain way - that is PvP (player vs player) action.
I also strongly suggest that all gaming groups discuss and agree on the limits of PvP in the game at the start of a campaign. What are the limits? PvP can take many forms: social skills use (such as using intimidate/persuade); theft (rogue picking the pockets of another character); spell usage (charms etc); combat (a character attempts to hit another one for damage).
One thing that I always tell my players - they may not use abilities or skills on each other that force a change in roleplay or decision making. To do so removes player agency and thus removes the fun of the game. For me this includes all social skills, as well as charm spells etc - basically anything that removes or changes the player's ability to decide on their character's actions.
As well as removal of player agency being really un-fun for that player it gets even worse if you set a precedence and allow a character with a high charisma to persuade/intimidate the other characters. What is their recourse? It's likely they will not want to be around that person, so suddenly your adventuring group doesn't want to actual be a group. Worse still, the response may be, "He threatened me? Ok, sure, when he's not looking I cast disintegrate on him...."
tl;dr - I think you made absolutely the right call by asking the player how his character would respond, regardless of the first player wanting to intimidate them.
I wouldnt allow a player to intimidate another players character based on OOC knowledge. They could ask the other player to tell them, or intimidate their character based on in-character knowledge, but them intimidating the other PC to tell them about something their character did not know about seems more like metagaming and a conflict of interest in the party than anything else.
The player that talked to the NPC did it in front of the group as a whisper to the NPC. Another member of the group try to eavesdropped but failed his roll. That's when the aggressive PC then turned into something that he needed to know right away.
That created a cold moment in the group and I think the roleplay during the future sessions will rotate around that. to be continued...
Talked to the player that was having the whispered conversation and felt it was a bit far fetched coming from the other player. There's a huge backstory that has yet to be revealed about that. As a DM ... I'm excited about how things will turn out.
I've tried both styles of play (with players rolling social rolls against each other and without) and both can work, depending on your style of play. I've always used it, however, as a "alright, roll to see how intimidating/persuasive/deceptive you are". Meaning that if they roll low, their character might fumble over their words or stutter or something. Then the other player could decide how their character picked up on it, sometimes requiring a roll (like deception vs insight) but sometimes not. This kept things fair, however, if the player knew the other was decieving them, it's hard for the player to portray the character not knowing based on that roll alone. So why bother.
More recently I've ruled on the table that we don't use opposed social rolls anymore and truthfully, I think I like that more. Players can decide how gullible their characters are, so in things that are important to them, they're not gullible at all. But if it's a matter of "the rogue stole a cookie and the paladin asks if he did, rogue says no" the paladin simply shrugs and goes "ok, I don't have a real reason to not believe you so we're cool". It saves a lot of time and frustration if your group can work that way. Not all groups can or want to.
That said. I would never, ever EVER allow a player to go "I use intimidate to force this other player's character to do what I want". That's no fun for the other player thus it ruins the fun at the table. If its against an NPC I don't really care if players go "I use this skill to achieve that from this NPC" because it lets me know how they're approaching things. Sometimes I do it the other way around, if the players simply go "Dear sir, if you'd simply let us leave it would be in your best interest" they can try to be intimidating or persuading, that's up to them so I ask them. If they'd say "If you don't let us leave I'll pummel you to oblivion" that's obviously intimidation.
I don't think there's harm in any version of how to use these rules, again depending on what works on your table. People have vary different playstyles and they're all correct :P
One thing that I always tell my players - they may not use abilities or skills on each other that force a change in roleplay or decision making. To do so removes player agency and thus removes the fun of the game. For me this includes all social skills, as well as charm spells etc - basically anything that removes or changes the player's ability to decide on their character's actions
Pretty much that right there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
The intimidating player got really frustrated saying that he rolled high enough.
You need to explain gently to the player that sometimes they don't get to make rolls.
Take it back to basics and explain the big steps for how an RPG is played.
Players state their goal and approach.
GM and players determines the result of the action.
GM and players narrate the outcome (results, costs and consequences).
The important point is that none of these steps necessarily require dice rolls. For example, if the GM determines that an action has no chance of failure then step 2 is simply "your character succeeds".
Dice rolls are only called for if the outcome is uncertain.
In the example above, the sequence would be something like the following.
Player A states their goal (find out what the NPC said to character B) and their approach (have character A threaten character B).
Player B determines whether or not character B tells the information to character A. Let's say they decide "no".
The GM and players narrate the outcome. In this case, the result is that character A doesn't learn the information and the consequence is that character B resents character A for threatening them.
At step 2, player B could have decided the outcome is uncertain and called for a dice roll from player A, but this is player B's call, not player A's.
The short and blunt version is "Players don't get to request rolls; they state what their character is doing."
Don't say, "I make an intimidate roll on the guard." Say, "Bêlit looms over the guard and tells him that if he doesn't let us in then she'll break his legs."
Good day beautiful people!
last night I was on session 3 of my first DM game. At one point one of the character had a private discussion with a NPC. Another player got pissed because he wasn’t part of the conversation so he rolled intimidation on the Player across the table to Know what was talked about.
Even if he rolled around 17, I turned to the target player to see if he would get intimidated. He said no. The intimidating player got really frustrated saying that he rolled high enough.
Never seeing this kind of situation before, what are the rules or general thoughts on PC intimidating other PC?
thanks!
Player vs player intimidation, both roll a d20, first player adds his intimidation bonus, second adds his wisdom bonus. If you don want the first player to know, tell him the game doesn't revolve around him, as a dm you have that say.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersUse of skills, who decides when to make a roll and what for is something that has prompted much discussion.
Under intimidation it states:
"When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check"
To me the wording I have highlighted in bold is really important here - it should always be the DMs decision of whether a dice roll is needed for something or not.
As for using social skills on other player characters to force them into acting a certain way - that is PvP (player vs player) action.
I also strongly suggest that all gaming groups discuss and agree on the limits of PvP in the game at the start of a campaign. What are the limits? PvP can take many forms: social skills use (such as using intimidate/persuade); theft (rogue picking the pockets of another character); spell usage (charms etc); combat (a character attempts to hit another one for damage).
One thing that I always tell my players - they may not use abilities or skills on each other that force a change in roleplay or decision making. To do so removes player agency and thus removes the fun of the game. For me this includes all social skills, as well as charm spells etc - basically anything that removes or changes the player's ability to decide on their character's actions.
As well as removal of player agency being really un-fun for that player it gets even worse if you set a precedence and allow a character with a high charisma to persuade/intimidate the other characters. What is their recourse? It's likely they will not want to be around that person, so suddenly your adventuring group doesn't want to actual be a group. Worse still, the response may be, "He threatened me? Ok, sure, when he's not looking I cast disintegrate on him...."
tl;dr - I think you made absolutely the right call by asking the player how his character would respond, regardless of the first player wanting to intimidate them.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Thank you and well said.
I wouldnt allow a player to intimidate another players character based on OOC knowledge. They could ask the other player to tell them, or intimidate their character based on in-character knowledge, but them intimidating the other PC to tell them about something their character did not know about seems more like metagaming and a conflict of interest in the party than anything else.
The player that talked to the NPC did it in front of the group as a whisper to the NPC. Another member of the group try to eavesdropped but failed his roll. That's when the aggressive PC then turned into something that he needed to know right away.
That created a cold moment in the group and I think the roleplay during the future sessions will rotate around that. to be continued...
Talked to the player that was having the whispered conversation and felt it was a bit far fetched coming from the other player. There's a huge backstory that has yet to be revealed about that. As a DM ... I'm excited about how things will turn out.
I've tried both styles of play (with players rolling social rolls against each other and without) and both can work, depending on your style of play. I've always used it, however, as a "alright, roll to see how intimidating/persuasive/deceptive you are". Meaning that if they roll low, their character might fumble over their words or stutter or something. Then the other player could decide how their character picked up on it, sometimes requiring a roll (like deception vs insight) but sometimes not. This kept things fair, however, if the player knew the other was decieving them, it's hard for the player to portray the character not knowing based on that roll alone. So why bother.
More recently I've ruled on the table that we don't use opposed social rolls anymore and truthfully, I think I like that more. Players can decide how gullible their characters are, so in things that are important to them, they're not gullible at all. But if it's a matter of "the rogue stole a cookie and the paladin asks if he did, rogue says no" the paladin simply shrugs and goes "ok, I don't have a real reason to not believe you so we're cool". It saves a lot of time and frustration if your group can work that way. Not all groups can or want to.
That said. I would never, ever EVER allow a player to go "I use intimidate to force this other player's character to do what I want". That's no fun for the other player thus it ruins the fun at the table. If its against an NPC I don't really care if players go "I use this skill to achieve that from this NPC" because it lets me know how they're approaching things. Sometimes I do it the other way around, if the players simply go "Dear sir, if you'd simply let us leave it would be in your best interest" they can try to be intimidating or persuading, that's up to them so I ask them. If they'd say "If you don't let us leave I'll pummel you to oblivion" that's obviously intimidation.
I don't think there's harm in any version of how to use these rules, again depending on what works on your table. People have vary different playstyles and they're all correct :P
Subclass: Dwarven Defender - Dragonborn Paragon
Feats: Artificer Apprentice
Monsters: Sheep - Spellbreaker Warforged Titan
Magic Items: Whipier - Ring of Secret Storage - Collar of the Guardian
Monster template: Skeletal Creature
Pretty much that right there.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You need to explain gently to the player that sometimes they don't get to make rolls.
Take it back to basics and explain the big steps for how an RPG is played.
The important point is that none of these steps necessarily require dice rolls. For example, if the GM determines that an action has no chance of failure then step 2 is simply "your character succeeds".
Dice rolls are only called for if the outcome is uncertain.
In the example above, the sequence would be something like the following.
At step 2, player B could have decided the outcome is uncertain and called for a dice roll from player A, but this is player B's call, not player A's.
The short and blunt version is "Players don't get to request rolls; they state what their character is doing."
Don't say, "I make an intimidate roll on the guard."
Say, "Bêlit looms over the guard and tells him that if he doesn't let us in then she'll break his legs."
I've used/invented passive bravery (10 + CON + INITIATIVE) as an indication on how easily a creature is intimidated.
Note that sometime passive bravery can lead to passive stupidity if you passively ignore all warning signs ;)