Skills used by players on other players.

Blue said:

Since [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] said that he'd handle the same situation one way if the speaker was an NPC and another if the speaker is a PC, we've already proven there is uncertainty. There wouldn't need to be a check for an NPC if there wasn't.

Click to expand...

I will refer you back to the post you're referencing with some additional emphasis:

iserith said:

If a player describes the character as trying to determine an NPC's true intentions by observing its body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms, then I'll adjudicate and narrate as normal. I would have telegraphed a tell while describing the environment anyway.

In almost all cases, if there is an ability check at all, this would be a Wisdom (Insight) check though; passive Insight would only be called upon to resolve a task performed repeatedly and that's not likely to come up much.

Click to expand...

I was very careful with my language here. "Adjudicate and narrate as normal" means to follow the D&D 5e rules for adjudicating a proposed task which does not necessarily mean there is an ability check. I go on to clarify that there may or may not be an ability check.

Blue said:

I am focusing on the "roll required" because that's where the inconsistency is, much like a doctor would focus on your arm if that was where you had a cut. No need to xray your leg.

It was a PC making the Insight check in both cases. It was PC or NPC who was speaking.

If a NPC says something to a PC, and there's uncertainty enough for that PC to make a check, it is inconsistent to say that if instead the speaker was a PC saying the same thing that no uncertainty would exist. So we've already established that we are in the situation a roll should be made. (Or the roll shouldn't be made for the NPC either, in which case we still have an inconsistancy.)

Click to expand...

Yes, it's clear that you're ignoring the bits inconvient to your argument. However, it's also clear that your confusion is due to you ignoring those parts. So long as you ignore the full argument, there's really no where to go here. Maybe you'll reconsider and think through the whole argument, or maybe you won't. Ironically, it's entirely up to you.

Charlaquin said:

If the being is a fellow PC, then I would ask the player of the PC being lied to if the lie being told has a reasonable chance of deceiving their character or not. To do otherwise would be to make an exception to the rule that the player decides how their character thinks and acts.

Click to expand...

Is this possible paraphrasing intended?

If the being is a fellow PC, then I would ask the player of the PC being grappled if the grapple has a reasonable chance of reducing their character's speed to 0 or not. To do otherwise would be to make an exception to the rule that the player decides how their character thinks and acts.

jasper said:

How many times did Faceman, Mad Dog Murdock trick B.A? This is game where your actions and choices have results. Choose to play the dumb barbarian it sucks when you and Bob can not roleplay the situation out and I have to call for roll.
Player agency the get of jail free card of D&D. Aka I not going to do that.

Click to expand...

I read that one as B.A's player saying at the start of the game "I'm gonna play a combat monster who's sort of stubborn and obnoxious - you guys figure out ways to get to go along for the fun of it" - and then the players had fun trying to see how they could outdo themselves over the last time in getting the B.A. to go along - and everyone thought it was great. It wasn't that the other players were controlling the dumb barbarian - the player stated upfront that is what he wanted to do. So no "Get out of jail free card".

Note that kind of situation came up in a game I was in. Everyone at the table loved it.

FrogReaver said:

He can determine if there is uncertainty for the NPC because he controls the NPC. He cannot do the same for the PC that he does not control the PC.

Click to expand...

For me, control can't be the deciding factor here. The DM doesn't control the PC when they call for a climb check or a perception check, any more than they do when they call for an insight check.

clearstream said:

For me, control can't be the deciding factor here. The DM doesn't control the PC when they call for a climb check or a perception check, any more than they do when they call for an insight check.

Click to expand...

A task performed by a PC or NPC to influence a PC's thoughts does not have an uncertain outcome because the player of that character determines how the character thinks. There's no check here.

When we get into other tasks that are essentially PC vs. PC, some of us let the players resolve that among themselves through negotiation to avoid the many problems that can arise from having the DM adjudicate with the game mechanics.

It's not any more complicated than that.

clearstream said:

For me, control can't be the deciding factor here. The DM doesn't control the PC when they call for a climb check or a perception check, any more than they do when they call for an insight check.

Click to expand...

Ultimately, what the DM controls here is the sense of whether or not a check is warranted and/or worthwhile. And for most cases, I generally consider the slip of a tell when trying to deceive uncertain by default - unless the player chooses to make the lie completely obvious via their PC's actions such as obviously winking while lying.

clearstream said:

For me, control can't be the deciding factor here. The DM doesn't control the PC when they call for a climb check or a perception check, any more than they do when they call for an insight check.

Click to expand...

Do you dispute that the player controls what their PC thinks and tries to do? If no, then this is simple -- the PC gets to say what they think and do; there's no uncertainty so no need for a check. If yes, well, we're at an impasse.

clearstream said:

Is this possible paraphrasing intended?

If the being is a fellow PC, then I would ask the player of the PC being grappled if the grapple has a reasonable chance of reducing their character's speed to 0 or not. To do otherwise would be to make an exception to the rule that the player decides how their character thinks and acts.

Click to expand...

If the being doing the grappling is a fellow PC? Then absolutely.

Blue said:

If a NPC says something to a PC, and there's uncertainty enough for that PC to make a check, it is inconsistent to say that if instead the speaker was a PC saying the same thing that no uncertainty would exist. So we've already established that we are in the situation a roll should be made. (Or the roll shouldn't be made for the NPC either, in which case we still have an inconsistency.)

Click to expand...

Looking at the arguments made, it seems like two rules are being added. The first states that for some skills, what is considered is between players, not between characters. The second states that for those skills, a resolution between players commutes to a resolution between their characters. The added rules make it possible to have uncertainty when applying a skill between a player-character and a non-player character, while having certainty when applying that same skill between a player-character and another player character.

Whether a group adds those rules or not seems to me a matter of confidence and concerns. If I add those rules, then as a DM I don't need to on-the-fly make balanced calls relating to some of the hairier character-to-character possibilities, that aren't well covered by the written mechanics. Players who like more leverage over the fiction might prefer it. On the other hand, if the preference is for immersion, then I think a group wouldn't want those rules. Because instead of everything being mediated inside the fiction, as constructed by the game system, it can jump outside all that to the people around the table.

I guess I prefer the "holding to account" that I see in refusing those added rules. If Alice dumped Charisma, she's going to suck at that part of the game. To feel okay about that, I have to feel confident of offering balanced stakes in PvP situations. I also don't like the "jump outside": I prefer the characters as much as possible to be played as if they really were in the game world.