Skills used by players on other players.

GameOgre said:

You are right. However if you choose to play your 6 strength character like a musclebound hulking pillar of strength there are in game mechanics that prohibit that. Mainly negatives to any roll he makes to do anything with strength. If your trying to use Strength verse a giant or guard or another pc you will get the exact same mod.

If you choose to role play your cha 8 character as a charming ladies man who is skilled of tongue there are in game mechanics that greatly negatively effect that against giants,guards but not in any way shape or form with another PC?

Int is the same way. Loads of modifiers but not when role playing and not with another pc?

This is what bothers me greatly and so yes, I use them.

Skills in 5E are mostly just ability score checks so they get wrapped up with them as well.

Click to expand...

Why does this bother you?

As a DM or player, I couldn't give a dusty flumph what someone else's ability scores are and how he or she chooses to use them to inform how they portray the character. It's really just none of my business as I see it. As long as the player is pursuing the goals of play in good faith, that is, making choices that are fun for everyone and that contribute to an exciting, memorable tale, then it's all good in my view.

And if I ever found myself in the position where the game wasn't fun for me because the barbarian isn't acting according to some arbitrary standard I made up about how an Int 6 character should act, then I would engage in some serious self-examination. Because maybe it's not the barbarian's player that's the problem. Maybe it's me.

This thread seems to have a few undercurrents.

First is the fact that the OP thinks the barbarian should pay a price for low mental ability scores. Fair enough. That's easy to do by having saving throws that target those stats on a somewhat regular basis. You can also throw other skill checks their way - trap them in a room with a puzzle or have those ninjas walk up to him and attack with advantage because he can never see them for example.

However ... why do you feel the need to punish a player for their decision? Do you go out of your way to make sure the wizard pays a price for their low strength, or the cleric for their low dexterity?

Even in a dungeon crawl oriented game, in my experience there are ways to challenge characters without resorting to telling them what they think.

A related topic is how to handle a smart (or charismatic) player running an unintelligent or un-charismatic character. That is tougher. If Bob is running a BDF (big dumb fighter) but is really intelligent and Joe (who is a nice guy but not particularly bright) plays the genius wizard, how much to you let make tactical decisions, especially when it's a group decision?

When I'm DMing if Bob's BDF PC does something incredibly intelligent for their own action without having a chance to discuss with the group, I'll sometimes ask for a roll.

But if the group is discussing strategy and Bob makes a suggestion that the group agrees with, I'll allow it because frankly Joe isn't as smart as his character.

Same way with charisma-based checks. If someone quiet is playing a charismatic PC, I'll ask if they want to contribute and let them do the charisma check instead of the half-orc played by the charismatic player. I'll also try to encourage them to speak up more, but I don't dictate how my players should have fun.

So I agree there are gray areas. To me though, it crosses the line from role playing to roll playing when dice decide how a PC thinks about any external action. What they do may be influenced by multiple things, but why they do something is up to the player.

GameOgre said:

You are right. However if you choose to play your 6 strength character like a musclebound hulking pillar of strength there are in game mechanics that prohibit that. Mainly negatives to any roll he makes to do anything with strength. If your trying to use Strength verse a giant or guard or another pc you will get the exact same mod.

If you choose to role play your cha 8 character as a charming ladies man who is skilled of tongue there are in game mechanics that greatly negatively effect that against giants,guards but not in any way shape or form with another PC?

Int is the same way. Loads of modifiers but not when role playing and not with another pc?

This is what bothers me greatly and so yes, I use them.


Skills in 5E are mostly just ability score checks so they get wrapped up with them as well.

Click to expand...

I don’t personally feel bound to play the character according to the ability scores. From time to time I do, but if for example my character’s ideal is Justice or whatever then I use that versus the scores. My justice-focused character likely pursues the just course of action without respect to the ability modifier.

Maybe I have a low charisma score character that (by luck of the roll) hasn’t failed a CHA check yet. That character may indeed feel like they have a silver tongue. They may have a reputation for same.

Long story short - ability scores can inform how I play a character, but often don’t. Part of the tale, not the whole ball of wax.

Reading this I'm glad I run a skilless system.

But in the event that other players are the table are running my PC via skill checks I'll just roll the sheet up in a ball, toss it to the player in question, and tell them to have fun as I'm heading home. Just not interested in a game where other players can dictate my action with a dice roll.

GameOgre said:

You are right. However if you choose to play your 6 strength character like a musclebound hulking pillar of strength there are in game mechanics that prohibit that. Mainly negatives to any roll he makes to do anything with strength. If your trying to use Strength verse a giant or guard or another pc you will get the exact same mod.

If you choose to role play your cha 8 character as a charming ladies man who is skilled of tongue there are in game mechanics that greatly negatively effect that against giants,guards but not in any way shape or form with another PC?

Click to expand...

And you think the better solution is to allow players to force Int, Wis, and Cha rolls from other players, rather than to disallow players to force Strength, Dex, and Con rolls from other players?

In my opinion, PvP should always be mutually consensual, whether physical, mental, or social in nature. If the other player wants to let the dice decide if your character convinces theirs to go along with your plan, or wrestled them to the ground, that’s fine. If they want to let your character convince them or restrain them without a roll, that’s fine too. If they don’t want to be convinced or wrestled to the ground at all, that is also fine.

GameOgre said:

Int is the same way. Loads of modifiers but not when role playing and not with another pc?

Click to expand...

Can you elaborate on what you mean by “not when role playing”?

Hiya!

First... TL;DR the eleven pages...just the first. So if others have commented on this, sorry to be redundant!

Second...

This is one major reason why I (we; me and my group) have stuck to the "Old Skool" style of play wherein the PLAYER IS the characters mental capabilities...at least as far as a player being 'allowed' to behave how he wants his PC to behave as well as 'solve/contemplate' things the PC's mental faculties wouldn't likely premit (based on actual mechanical stat numbers).

We *encourage* each player to RP their PC the way they want...based on what they know of their character. That includes a PC's level, race, alignment, stats, skills, etc...the whole package. Somewhere along the line...*cough* 3rd Edition *cough* ...the game switched to "You decide what you want to do in the game" to "You go by your characters mechanics to decide what to do in the game". If you had a PC with a 7 Int and the group is presented with a riddle on a door, it is the PLAYER that is going to get enjoyment from figuring it out...not the PC. The riddle isn't there to challenge the PC...its' there to challenge the PLAYER. (this is Old Skool thinking). Looking at non-Old Skool, the general consensus seems to have been switched to the idea that the PC is the one required to figure out the riddle...usually in a simple, sterile, and boring "Make a DC XX roll using skill YY or ability ZZ". Where's the fun in that?

Apply the same sort of Old Skool play style to social skills and you know where I stand; the Player should decide if his PC is actually persuaded by the other. The PLAYER of the barbarian should decide what he thinks would be fun for his character and the situation at hand (re: group). Obviously this PLAYER decided he didn't want to help the village. The PLAYER probably wanted to 'get on with' what he thought was the regular adventure, or what he wanted to do in the game (whatever it was)...not suddenly stop that to go do something some other PLAYER decided was 'more fun'. In my game, the player of the Barbarian probably would have went along with it....but likely would have had his PC start to wonder what the heck he was doing after a few hours or a day or so. I mean, his PC obviously didn't want to...but he got 'talked into it'. After a few hours/day, after being in the village and starting to help and stuff, the barbarian has one of those moments where they stop packing flour for the village miller, turn to the PC next to him and say "...uh...tell me again. Why are we doing this? I thought we were going to kill the dragon?". I mean, just because you get persuaded "in the moment" to do something, doesn't mean that once you start doing it you don't "instantly regret" it. I'm sure jails are FULL of people like this.

So, bottom line; the PLAYER does get to decide if his character is persuaded or not. That doesn't mean his PC must obey forever. All it means, in allowing said rolls to take place in the first place, is that PC X made a compelling argument and was REALLY persuasive; now, PLAYER of PC Y can decide to go along with the numbers narrative...for however long he wants....or he can just decide to ignore it. IMNSHO, if a DM is going to start allowing other PLAYERS to force other PLAYERS to play their character in some way via some skill roll....well, that kind of defeats the ENTIRE purpose of an RPG; that the PLAYER decides what his PC does in 'normal' (re: non-magical) situations. Talking is not magical...no matter how well the guy rolled on his Persuasion check.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

clearstream said:

...

Click to expand...

When a character persuades a NPC, a neutral arbiter (the DM) decides what part of agency is given up, for how long, and what circumstances can interrupt that. A DM can hand wave lack of definition in that regard.

Click to expand...

Actually when a PC persuades an NPC, no part of the NPC's agency is given up. If there is a check, the DM is using the check because he is uncertain on whether the NPC was persuaded by the PC. The NPC is still in complete control of his thoughts. The check isn't telling him what to think, it's telling whether he thought it.


So let's assume the same thing for the bard and barbarian. Let's assume there is a check. Let's say the check is not telling the barbarian what to think it's just informing everyone what the barbarian already thought. But most importantly that means it's informing the player of the barbarian what the barbarian thinks regardless of how this player envisions his barbarian thinking. That's the issue. There's now a controller of an in-game character that is being told the character under their control thinks something without their input.

Again, this doesn't happen with persuading NPC's. The DM that controls the NPC's isn't getting told what the NPC thinks regardless of what he envisions the NPC thinking because he is both the controller of the NPC and the one determining that the attempt at persuasion is uncertain enough to call for a skill check. If he had determined that the attempt at persuasion wasn't uncertain he wouldn't have called for a check and there would be no chance of having a skill check "force" the NPC to do something contrary to how the DM envisioned him.

If the DM calls for a persuasion check on the NPC it's because the DM is planning on using the result of that check to inform him of what the NPC decided to think/do. If the DM calls a persuasion check when a PC tries to persuade a PC, the DM literally can have no idea if there's any certainty or uncertainty in the attempt because he doesn't control that PC. In other words, when it comes to persuasion, only the person controlling the target of the check can ultimately decide what if any uncertainty is present in regards to the attempt. And since there should only be a check when uncertainty is present then the only way we get to this point where a PC is rolling persuasion against a PC whose player would not want to go along with the result would be to ask for the check without first finding out if there was uncertainty present.

The real issue appears to me to be about calling for checks without first establishing whether there is actually uncertainty. If that's avoided then all of this is avoided as well.

iserith said:

What do you mean by "skill usage?"

Click to expand...

*blink*

Really?

I don't know of a respectful way to say this, but I hope you're trolling me because otherwise I don't understand where your multiple responses to my comments have been coming from since that was the point under discussion since the first.

Okay, going back to my original comment at the top of the tree you've been responding to:

Blue said:

Character A tells the group something. The character is lying.

Character B is suspicious - maybe they think character A is charmed, or carrying out a mission for their faction, or it doesn't jive with other information. Player B asks the DM if their character thinks Character A is lying.

Is it in-line for the DM to ask for a bluff vs. insight role if the first character wasn't telling the truth?

Click to expand...

I made a few mistakes here. I used bluff and insight instead of Charisma (Deception) and Wisdom (Insight). And my informal usage of "thinks" seems to have been a point of contention because it implies the DM can control the character and it should have been phrased differently that the character is attempting to gather information.

Would it help if I restated it like this:

"A being in the game world intentionally tells the group a lie.

Player B, regardless of their metagame knowledge of if it is a lie or not, seeks confirmation of what their character B can glean using their ability to read people. They wish to act on only knowledge their character would have.

If the being speaking was an NPC, 5e offers a system to resolve this with a Charisma (bluff) vs. either a passive Wisdom (Insight) or an active Wisdom (Insight) roll, depending on the variations of the table."

Is that clear what I am speaking about in regards of skill usage? Since common but informal usage of words seems to have been a bone of contention, should I say ability score checks that may be modified by skills?

@iserith is asking a valid question. By “skill usage” do you mean a player saying “I will use my Persuade skill” or do you mean the player narrating an attempt to persuade, and the player/DM who controls the target deciding the outcome is uncertain and asking for an ability check? (Because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the former case is not RAW 5e.)

On another note, it seems the waters are being muddied because the scenario in question involves TWO contentious aspects: the use of social skills on players and PvP.

We could break this into two topics:

What happens when a player tries to Grapple another player?
What happens when an NPC tries to persuade a PC of something?

Although answers will differ, for any one person the answers shouldn’t change when recombined back into the original question.

Beowülf said:

@iserith is asking a valid question. By “skill usage” do you mean a player saying “I will use my Persuade skill” or do you mean the player narrating an attempt to persuade, and the player/DM who controls the target deciding the outcome is uncertain and asking for an ability check? (Because, as has been pointed out repeatedly, the former case is not RAW 5e.)

Click to expand...

Thank you.