Skills used by players on other players.

Blue · Dec 11, 2018

iserith said:
Which rules are you referring to? Players don't get to decide they're making a Wisdom (Insight) check or any other kind of ability check. They might succeed or fail outright with no roll. All they get to do is describe a task they want to perform.

When talking about consistency in applying the rules that's for the DM, not the players.

iserith said:
You can call it a "house rule." It doesn't bother me. But it's not really. I'm still effectively deciding the result as DM. I'm just giving the players input. I'm not required to use mechanics to resolve a situation as DM. The rules serve me, not the other way around.

You are withholding information that you would have given the character if the speaker was an NPC. By your own words. You're pushing off the answer to others because you don't want to get involved. By your own words. That's not a result, it's a lack of result.

If you were in a university taking a test, they wouldn't give you credit for leaving the box blank. Nor if you wrote in the box "I decline to answer this but I'm sure between the professor and the teaching assistant they can come up with the right answer."

iserith · Dec 11, 2018

Blue said:
When talking about consistency in applying the rules that's for the DM, not the players.

Consistency in this regard is something players can count on in my games. It's one of my principles.

Blue said:
You are withholding information that you would have given the character if the speaker was an NPC. By your own words. You're pushing off the answer to others because you don't want to get involved. By your own words. That's not a result, it's a lack of result.

If you were in a university taking a test, they wouldn't give you credit for leaving the box blank. Nor if you wrote in the box "I decline to answer this but I'm sure between the professor and the teaching assistant they can come up with the right answer."

Except I'm not leaving the box blank. I'm copying off the person next to me whose answer is always right.

guachi · Dec 11, 2018

Because no one asked for it, this is what I do.

For intraparty actions, all participants must agree on the method of resolution or the action doesn't happen.

This can be a simple "no".
Player A: I attack Player B.
Player B: No.

It could be a player who is unsure of how his character might respond.
Player A: Is there some way my character could convince your character to help the villagers?
Player B: It's possible but it would be difficult. How about a DC 18 Persuasion check?
Player A: Ok.

The players could thumb wrestle to determine the outcome for all I care.

It turns out this has only come up once. One player wanted to play a prank on another PC. At first,v they looked to me to resolve it but I reminded them they could resolve it however they chose, as long as they both agreed. After a moment, both started acting like little kids playing pretend. It's liberating not having to play "DM, May I?"

Ovinomancer · Dec 11, 2018

Blue said:
When talking about consistency in applying the rules that's for the DM, not the players.

It's 100% consistent. Again, the play loop is:

1. DM describes environment.
2. Players declare PC actions
3. DM determines if actions are auto success, auto fail, or uncertain. If uncertain, call for checks.

Added is the rule that players have the sole power to decide what their PCs think.

In all your cases, you get to 3 and decide that the PC's declared action is uncertain. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] gets there and applies the rule that players get to say what they think and decides there's no uncertainty: it's whatever the players say. Iserith is 100% consistsnt in his adjudication.

If I had to point at the confusion, it would be that you've interalized a play concept from eariler editions that mechanics are to be preferentially used to resolve conflicts. 5e has moved away from that (though you can still do it) with how it structures play. Now there's a distinct pass to determine auto success/failure and only then go to checks. In this latter case, the guideline that players have full control over thier PC thinkings and feelings means that for questions on that front are the players' purview, not the DM's.

You clearly do not have to be agree with this, but that doesn't mean it isn't well thought out or consistent.

Blue · Dec 11, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
In all your cases, you get to 3 and decide that the PC's declared action is uncertain. @iserith gets there and applies the rule that players get to say what they think and decides there's no uncertainty: it's whatever the players say. Iserith is 100% consistsnt in his adjudication.

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.

Ovinomancer · Dec 11, 2018

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.

No. You're not following. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] can determine if the situation is uncertain fir an NPC because that's in his control. He could also have determined it automatically succeeded or failed. His choice in that example was not axiomatic. If it's a PC, then the DM doesn't have that choice at all, the player does.

Again, the step where confusion exists is #3. There are three choices there -- success, no roll; failure, no roll; and uncertain, roll required. You are fixating on the last and ignoring the other two. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] could also have said no check was needed for the NPC.

FrogReaver · Dec 11, 2018

Blue said:
Since @iserith 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.

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.

jasper · Dec 11, 2018

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.

iserith · Dec 11, 2018

guachi said:
Because no one asked for it, this is what I do.

For intraparty actions, all participants must agree on the method of resolution or the action doesn't happen.

This can be a simple "no".
Player A: I attack Player B.
Player B: No.

It could be a player who is unsure of how his character might respond.
Player A: Is there some way my character could convince your character to help the villagers?
Player B: It's possible but it would be difficult. How about a DC 18 Persuasion check?
Player A: Ok.

The players could thumb wrestle to determine the outcome for all I care.

It turns out this has only come up once. One player wanted to play a prank on another PC. At first,v they looked to me to resolve it but I reminded them they could resolve it however they chose, as long as they both agreed. After a moment, both started acting like little kids playing pretend. It's liberating not having to play "DM, May I?"

One thing I've noticed is that when you implement these sorts of approaches, all the PVP stuff by and large seems to evaporate.

Blue · Dec 11, 2018

Ovinomancer said:
No. You're not following. @iserith can determine if the situation is uncertain fir an NPC because that's in his control. He could also have determined it automatically succeeded or failed. His choice in that example was not axiomatic. If it's a PC, then the DM doesn't have that choice at all, the player does.

Again, the step where confusion exists is #3. There are three choices there -- success, no roll; failure, no roll; and uncertain, roll required. You are fixating on the last and ignoring the other two. @iserith could also have said no check was needed for the NPC.

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.)