Skills used by players on other players.

[Blue]

I honestly couldn't make much sense of the scenario, so I'll defer to [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] on the response as it sounds appropriate to what I could take away from your example.

Also, it would be great if you'd stop accusing me of sidestepping or trolling or any of the other things you've rather rudely accused me of in this thread. It makes me want to stop responding to you at all. I've answered your questions to the best of my ability, or others with whom I agree have done so, and have not at any time attempted to troll you. Thanks.

Sorry about that. Without the information you couldn't make sense of it, when you didn't address it at all it felt like you had sidestepped the part of the post that showed a scenario outside what you were talking about.

Here's where I think the big difference is. There are times that, as a DM, I see the need to adjudicate the results of a skill roll I have asked for in order for me to properly fulfill the duty of the DM to describe the environment. The environment includes information that can differ based on your character sheet, such as Darkvision, passive Perception and passive Insight. This is not to tell the player what the character things, but to give the player the information that the character should get.

Sometimes, this information comes from other PCs. Including tasks they are doing that would generate a dex (stealth) or charisma (deception) if you were attempting against an NPC. (Or another PC at my table.)

Regardless what the player knows, the player may need these checks to know if their character knows something. This isn't for the DM to control the character, it's for the DM to do their job of describing their environment correctly so the player can then decide what to do.

The idea you stated before for the lack of roll was:

Since a player determines how a character thinks and acts, the outcome of a task made to influence how the character thinks is not uncertain. Therefore, there is no ability check. These are also not house rules.

We now have a case where the ability check is not to determine how the character thinks nor how the character acts, but rather to give the player the information their character would observe. So that the player can make an informed decision how to have their character respond.

It seems that means that it would be valid to make that ability check.

 

[iserith]

Sometimes, this information comes from other PCs. Including tasks they are doing that would generate a dex (stealth) or charisma (deception) if you were attempting against an NPC. (Or another PC at my table.)

Regardless what the player knows, the player may need these checks to know if their character knows something. This isn't for the DM to control the character, it's for the DM to do their job of describing their environment correctly so the player can then decide what to do.

The DM doesn't need to ask for checks to describe the environment.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Actually, the players actions do little except become the environment. Did you hit with that arrow? Adjust the environment. Did you track the fleeing goblins and follow them? Great, you're now in a different part of the environment.

And YES, it is ABSOLUTELY the responsibility of the DM to take the described actions and describe them into the mechanics of the game. "You wish to identify the plant? Okay, please roll your Intelligence (Nature)."

Which is a great example of the first part, because based on that I can now describe the environment to a more detailed level for that character by giving them information base on the results of the skill roll.

In other words, you have properly identified two crucial things that a DM does, and correctly ascribed them to what I described.

In no way does that control a character, it just gives the player the information to make a call what they want to do with their character.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to how what the players do is really just the DM's responsibility to describe when the players have the designated power to describe what actions they are taking.

As to your second, kind of. The players declare what they want to do, the DM's responsibility to adjudicate and narrate the outcome, not the action. That may take the form of asking for a INT(nature) check is the describe action is trying to recall lore about a plant, but the trying to recall lore is what the PC does, as narrated by the player. The result is dependent on the DM's call that the attempt to recall lore is uncertain.

When dealing with what a PC thinks, though, there is no uncertain result -- it's what the player says. Because they're the only ones that get to determine what they think. So, yes, I have correctly described what DMs do according to the 5e playloop, but I don't think it lines up with what you're saying.

Yes, this means that players cannot get information about other PC if that involves discerning what they think, because its the players authority to say what's certain or uncertain about what they think. Such is the nature of imperfect models. I don't see how it improves the game to have the DM gainsay what players want their PCs to do based on what the DM thinks is appropriate. As a DM, I already have so much control over the game that I don't feel the need to step on my player's toes. In return, if they want to use persuasion or insight on each other, I let them work it out -- I've got no say in what they think. If they want to roll (and it's mutual), they can. Totally up to them. Meanwhile, I've got plenty to do.

 

[Blue]

The DM doesn't need to ask for checks to describe the environment.

The characters are about to ride into an ambush. How do you determine if the characters can see the foes in order to properly describe the environment?

PHB, pg 175 - Passive checks. PHB, pg 182 - Noticing Threats. The game explicitly says that yes, there are times you need to know the result of a check in order to describe the environment.

 

[Blue]

When dealing with what a PC thinks, though, there is no uncertain result -- it's what the player says. Because they're the only ones that get to determine what they think. So, yes, I have correctly described what DMs do according to the 5e playloop, but I don't think it lines up with what you're saying.

Yes, this means that players cannot get information about other PC if that involves discerning what they think, because its the players authority to say what's certain or uncertain about what they think. Such is the nature of imperfect models. I don't see how it improves the game to have the DM gainsay what players want their PCs to do based on what the DM thinks is appropriate. As a DM, I already have so much control over the game that I don't feel the need to step on my player's toes. In return, if they want to use persuasion or insight on each other, I let them work it out -- I've got no say in what they think. If they want to roll (and it's mutual), they can. Totally up to them. Meanwhile, I've got plenty to do.

You keep mentioning a DM gainsaying or controlling a character, and while I've said that would not happen at my table it keeps coming back up. I'm not sure where it's from, but let me give an example with no DM push for any particular action.

Player A: My character lies and tells everyone they treasure chest was empty.
Player B: My character is a good judge of people because I built them that way. Is my character observing any body language or tells that was a true or false statement?

There's no question at the player (not character) level that "the treasure chest is empty" is a lie.

The is a question at the character level if the second character observed this or thinks it is true.

This is not the DM pushing anything. Purely player motivation, both to deceive in the first place, and to uncover the deception in the second place.

The second player has not predetermined if their character will believe or disbelieve. The player wishes to find out what their character experiences so that based on that they can make a call. They need the full description of the environment including the results of their passive Insight (PHB, pg 175) in order so that they can determine what their character thinks and does.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You keep mentioning a DM gainsaying or controlling a character, and while I've said that would not happen at my table it keeps coming back up. I'm not sure where it's from, but let me give an example with no DM push for any particular action.

Player A: My character lies and tells everyone they treasure chest was empty.
Player B: My character is a good judge of people because I built them that way. Is my character observing any body language or tells that was a true or false statement?

There's no question at the player (not character) level that "the treasure chest is empty" is a lie.

The is a question at the character level if the second character observed this or thinks it is true.

This is not the DM pushing anything. Purely player motivation, both to deceive in the first place, and to uncover the deception in the second place.

The second player has not predetermined if their character will believe or disbelieve. The player wishes to find out what their character experiences so that based on that they can make a call. They need the full description of the environment including the results of their passive Insight (PHB, pg 175) in order so that they can determine what their character thinks and does.

You're telling Player B what their character thinks.

 

[iserith]

The characters are about to ride into an ambush. How do you determine if the characters can see the foes in order to properly describe the environment?

PHB, pg 175 - Passive checks. PHB, pg 182 - Noticing Threats. The game explicitly says that yes, there are times you need to know the result of a check in order to describe the environment.

I describe the environment, then assess if there is to be surprise, taking into account and reminding the players of the ongoing tasks they previously established ("staying alert to danger," "navigating," "drawing a map," etc.), then narrate the result of those actions.

 

[iserith]

Player A: My character lies and tells everyone they treasure chest was empty.
Player B: My character is a good judge of people because I built them that way. Is my character observing any body language or tells that was a true or false statement?

"I don't know - is he?"

Player B is sitting at the table, so he knows that Player A's character is lying. He or she can just say his or her character believes or disbelieves Player A's character for whatever reason Player B chooses to establish.

 

[Blue]

I describe the environment, then assess if there is to be surprise, taking into account and reminding the players of the ongoing tasks they previously established ("staying alert to danger," "navigating," "drawing a map," etc.), then narrate the result of those actions.

This feels like you're splitting a hair here.

My statement is along the lines of "there are times you need to know the results of a check to describe the environment".

And your statement seems to be "I describe the environment outside the checks. Then I determine the results of checks, then narrate the results (i.e. describe the environment)."

This really feel like we're saying the same thing. You need tio understand the results of the checks at times in order to describe the environment. Even if you break it into a "everyone notices" part and then something else.

 

[iserith]

This feels like you're splitting a hair here.

My statement is along the lines of "there are times you need to know the results of a check to describe the environment".

And your statement seems to be "I describe the environment outside the checks. Then I determine the results of checks, then narrate the results (i.e. describe the environment)."

This really feel like we're saying the same thing. You need tio understand the results of the checks at times in order to describe the environment. Even if you break it into a "everyone notices" part and then something else.

Narrating the results is distinct from describing the environment and is differentiated in the play loop described in the rules.

It seems like you want them to be the same thing to prove something about how you choose to play. You don't have to justify yourself.