Skills used by players on other players.

[Sacrosanct]

I'll try to not reciprocate by denigrating your favored playstyle, but as has been pointed out many, many, many times...ad nauseam...there are many different wants of "playing a character" that count as roleplaying. I think yours is just as inferior as you think mine is.

So let's just drop that line of attack...I mean argument...ok?
.

If you think me saying, "That's your opinion, mine is different" as an attack, well, then, I guess there's no point in even trying to have a discussion. Because pointing out how a view someone holds is an opinion is not denigrating you, or attacking your beliefs. It's simply pointing out how your view is not objective truth. Exactly like when I said my preference isn't the one true way to have fun either. Good lord...

 

[iserith]

Your position was that a player decides how their PC acts and thinks independent of stats.

That is incorrect. My position is that a player decides how their character thinks and acts and what it says, which is straight from the rules almost verbatim. I have made no claim as to the role of ability scores in making that determination. A player might do that, or might not. I take no position on that.

That is not following the rules because it is ignoring and overriding the rules. specifically stat values and the rules around resolution (like saving throws and ability checks). A PC with an INT of 6 is going to think differently than a character with an INT of 18. Those values are important because they guide us as players in how to role play the PC. Choosing to arbitrarily ignore those and play your PC however you want is not wrong (see the above post re: having fun), but it does in fact ignore the rules.

Please cite the rules that instruct players how to play their characters according to specific ability scores. So far as I can tell, page 10 of the Basic Rules gives some suggestions about how a character might look or act with a high or low score, but nothing about how they must look or act.

Yes there are, by the very definition of what those stats mean, and what the values of those stats represent. I mean, "charisma" has a definition. And the value of that attribute means something, and tells you how your character comes off to others. That's literally a rule/guideline telling you as a player how to act. What there are no rules for, is a rule that states "ability checks and saving throws no longer apply if it's another PC initiation the challenge." If I missed it, feel free to point out where it says that in the books. Those skill checks are there for a reason. If players always got to choose how they thought and acted, then why are there even certain skill checks to begin with?

Ability checks resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a task performed by a character, when there's a meaningful consequence of failure. The player describes what he or she wants to do. The DM decides if some sort of roll is appropriate. If there is no uncertainty and/or no meaningful consequence of failure, then there is no ability check. This all comes from the rules on ability checks in the Basic Rules and DMG.

In the case of a player having his or her character convince another player's character as to a course of action (as in the original post), there is no uncertainty because players always determine how their characters think and act (per the rules for roleplaying). The result is whatever the player says it is. Because there is no uncertainty, the DM cannot call for an ability check here.

 

[iserith]

And it's also been pointed out and had a whole post explaining in a high level of detail that people focusing on the word "thinks" in order to avoid what is very obvious a question about skill usage are missing the point.

What do you mean by "skill usage?"

 

[Charlaquin]

Your position was that a player decides how their PC acts and thinks independent of stats. That is not following the rules because it is ignoring and overriding the rules.

Can you quote the rule it overrides?

specifically stat values and the rules around resolution (like saving throws and ability checks).

But, by the rules, such checks and saves are made when the DM calls for them, not when players decide they want to force each other to make them.

A PC with an INT of 6 is going to think differently than a character with an INT of 18. Those values are important because they guide us as players in how to role play the PC. Choosing to arbitrarily ignore those and play your PC however you want is not wrong (see the above post re: having fun), but it does in fact ignore the rules.

Deciding to take your character’s ability scores into account when deciding how they think or act is certainly allowed by the rules, and in some cases encouraged by them, but it is never required by them. The only rule that governs how a character may or may not act is that the player decides how their own character behaves. Abiding by the results of rolls when the DM calls for them to be made is required by the rules, and at some tables the DM may call for rolls to resolve the outcome of PvP actions, while at others they may not. Neither ignores or overrides any rules.

Now, my way of handling it, where the player, rather than the DM decides whether or not a roll is called for when their character is the subject of a PvP action is a house rule. It does differ from the normal task resolution rules. But simply saying that the player decides how their character reacts, and not calling for a roll, is perfectly within the rules.

Yes there are, by the very definition of what those stats mean, and what the values of those stats represent. I mean, "charisma" has a definition. And the value of that attribute means something, and tells you how your character comes off to others. That's literally a rule/guideline telling you as a player how to act.

There is no rule in the book that says that. If you enforce that guideline at your table, that’s part of the social contract of your games,, but it is not written in the rulebook.

What there are no rules for, is a rule that states "ability checks and saving throws no longer apply if it's another PC initiation the challenge." If I missed it, feel free to point out where it says that in the books.

On page 4 of the basic rules (I think it might be page 6 in the PHB, I don’t have the book in front of me), under How to Play:

”Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.”

I would file “a PC tries to persuade another PC to do something” under one of those times when resolving a task is easy. Simply ask the player of PC being persuaded, “what do you do?” Since the player of the PC determines how their character acts, no dice roll is needed to resolve the action.

Those skill checks are there for a reason. If players always got to choose how they thought and acted, then why are there even certain skill checks to begin with?

For circumstances where the outcome of an action involving those abilities and/or skills is not easy and require a check or save to resolve. For example, when a PC attempts to persuade an NPC in a way that the NPC might or might not be receptive to, or when a spell is cast on the PC that forces a saving throw with one of those abilities.

 

[FrogReaver]

I dislike players like the half orc barbarian player. He creates a character with huge holes, ie his weak mental abilities, and has no problem letting the Face cover for him when dealing with NPCs but he doesn't want to ever be subject to the negatives.

This discussion is about whether a player losing control of his characters thoughts to a skill check is actually a negative that "can" occur.

If you presume that everyone thinks it is a negative that can occur for not having good mental stats then your comment makes sense. But this thread didn't get over 200 posts in it because people are trying to say that barbarians shouldn't have to live with valid outcomes of having low mental stats. It's a question about if this particular outcome is even a valid one in the first place.

In my opinion you must force the weaknesses in all situations or you are telling your players to just create combat monsters and ignore all other skills.

K, but that's not actually what we are talking about.

The half orc would certainly use his skills if he decided to pick pocket another player. Or his stealth if he decided to sneak out to go drinking when all the players decided to stay in and rest before a big battle.

But none of those examples are about a character losing his thoughts to a skill check. If we are right and it's something that just "can't" actually happen then no appeal to "fairness" or "ignoring weaknesses" or anything else is going to stop that from being the case. In fact we would be doing the fair thing by not playing that way and we wouldn't be ignoring any weakness at all. Instead the face character would be the one needing to stop "ignore" his weaknesses. That door swings both ways...

In short you are going to have to persuade us that on some fundamental level a player doesn't always get to choose what his PC thinks. The most likely way of doing that is to provide an example that we will agree with that ultimately boils down to a player not getting to choose what his PC thinks.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you think me saying, "That's your opinion, mine is different" as an attack, well, then, I guess there's no point in even trying to have a discussion. Because pointing out how a view someone holds is an opinion is not denigrating you, or attacking your beliefs. It's simply pointing out how your view is not objective truth. Exactly like when I said my preference isn't the one true way to have fun either. Good lord...

I'm sorry but claiming we are just airing differing opinions but including "Some people ignore role playing aspects..." is just disingenuous. You are very clearly using the "sure, if you don't want to actually roleplay" argument. There are a number of people here who invariably fall back on that defense, and it's disrespectful.

Sure, our difference on whether or not players can use social skills on each other is a matter of opinion and interpretation. But don't try to dismiss my opinion as "not roleplaying". That's insulting.

 

[Henry]

And as I mentioned in my initial reply, I absolutely agree that the player broke the unspoken social contract. I guess my point is that this is not a game issue, or a DM fiat issue.

I see what you're saying, and I can agree, it's a table issue first. It's not a "rules" or "fiat" issue unless you believe that the rules could be slightly better defined to help DMs understand the implications of this in the light of PvP at their table - and for anyone who doesn't think this is PvP, it is as surely as an athletics contest or a sword attack player-to-player is PvP. (Not saying you don't, I'm just expecting someone to claim it eventually.)

I'd even go so far as to say that the vast majority of players don't play their PCs with super low CHA as very off-putting, or very low INT as dumb. Especially players who struggle with immersive role playing. I want to make it clear that I'm not saying doing so is a bad thing in any way.

This is more of a side note: Someone actually playing their character as off-putting I would call having a higher CHA The PH described charisma as "interact effectively,"factors such as confidence and eloquence," and a "charming or commanding personality." A low charisma to me would be a character as socially dull as a stump, someone who actually is very shy or doesn't stand out at all and blends into the background. Being offensive implies the ability to make an impression, albeit a negative one, so even if they're playing their character as offensive, they still might not be playing it properly according to the rules. You can even help them roleplay by ignoring everything they say in character...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No, actually, it's you who isn't following the rules. Your position "A player determines how the character thinks and acts" is dependent on not following the rules, because it depends on ignoring the rules, specifically INT and WIS and CHA stats. Ability scores are part of the rules. And since your position is that the player decides how their PC acts regardless of what those stats are, then it's you who is not following the rules and guidelines.

I gotta admit, it's strange for me to hear that my position of using existing rules and guidelines for resolution based on ability scores is me "choosing not to follow the rules." It's literally the opposite.

Going to guess you did not intend this, but these ability score "rules" you follow appear to be approaching the territory of a DM being entitled to tell the player with an INT 6 Barbarian PC "That's not what your character would do", if Barbarian PC suggested a course of action that was "smart" in game.

 

[iserith]

Now, my way of handling it, where the player, rather than the DM decides whether or not a roll is called for when their character is the subject of a PvP action is a house rule. It does differ from the normal task resolution rules. But simply saying that the player decides how their character reacts, and not calling for a roll, is perfectly within the rules.

Not that I have an issue calling it a "house rule," but just for funsies, if you really think about it, it might not be: If the DM is the one who makes the call as to whether there's an ability check and the one who narrates the results of an adventurer's action, then all we're really doing is giving the player input on what is ultimately the DM's call. "What do you think happens here, Player? How do you think this goes?" followed by "Okay, that's what happens."

 

[GameOgre]

Please cite the rules that instruct players how to play their characters according to specific ability scores. So far as I can tell, page 10 of the Basic Rules gives some suggestions about how a character might look or act with a high or low score, but nothing about how they must look or act.

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.


*This entire thread is obviously no use to a game where there is no PC verse PC interaction. I have never seen one myself but I will admit they do exist. Even in the best groups I have played with PC's still used stealth on each other and the occasional slight of hand ect...