Skills used by players on other players.

[Charlaquin]

I must have missed when this became about insight instead of persuasion.

It’s about one character trying to convince or deceive another. Some DMs like to resolve that with an Insight check, some like to do it with a Persuasion or deception check, some do a contest of both...

 

[Charlaquin]

Mostly they ask me can I roll a check to see if...

This is the fundamental point of differentiation between the way you play and the way us folks on the other side of the argument play. In our play style, a player cannot ask to make a check. They can only describe what their character does in the fiction (and specific descriptive detail isn’t necessary, as long as there is a clear goal and approach to achieving that goal), and the DM narrates the results, possibly calling for the player to make a check if they feel it is necessary to determine the results.

 

[Guest 6801328]

It’s about one character trying to convince or deceive another. Some DMs like to resolve that with an Insight check, some like to do it with a Persuasion or deception check, some do a contest of both...

And, as I noted previously, it's further complicated because we're entangling two issues: PvP and agency.

Honestly I think this whole debate would be more clear if we stuck with a scenario where an NPC was trying to persuade a PC. The most important parts of the debate would still be there, without PvP clouding the issue.

Earlier somebody said something about @Blue also using house rules, and he responded that "not allowing PvP is a house rule" or something like that. But I think the person meant how he is using skills in general. (Funny how I can't remember now if I said something or it was [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] or [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION]....)

 

[Charlaquin]

And, as I noted previously, it's further complicated because we're entangling two issues: PvP and agency.

Honestly I think this whole debate would be more clear if we stuck with a scenario where an NPC was trying to persuade a PC. The most important parts of the debate would still be there, without PvP clouding the issue.

Earlier I said something about [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] also using house rules, and he responded that "not allowing PvP is a house rule" or something like that. I, of course, was talking about his penchant for players "using skills".

To be fair, the title of the thread is “skills used by players on other players.” PvP is the main point of contention here. The reason agency is bound up in the discussion is because agency is a big part of why many DMs don’t allow PvP.

 

[iserith]

And, as I noted previously, it's further complicated because we're entangling two issues: PvP and agency.

Honestly I think this whole debate would be more clear if we stuck with a scenario where an NPC was trying to persuade a PC. The most important parts of the debate would still be there, without PvP clouding the issue.

Earlier I said something about [MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION] also using house rules, and he responded that "not allowing PvP is a house rule" or something like that. I, of course, was talking about his penchant for players "using skills".

So far as I can tell, the rules are mute on the matter of PvP. I even looked in the DMG earlier today to see if there was anything in the "Table Rules" section. It seems like if it was going to go anywhere, it should have been mentioned in that part, given as common as players wanting to mess with other players' characters is. A table rule gets people on the same page with regard to whether this is acceptable play at a given table.

Does that mean PvP is not an expectation of the game? I don't know. The rules talk about how "teamwork and cooperation greatly improve your party's chances to survive the many perils in the worlds of D&D," how adventurers work together in teams called a "party." I can find nothing in the books that talk about conflicts between characters and how they might be resolved mechanically. We're left to figure that out on our own, I suppose, using the rules provided as a framework.

I think I'd leave off on calling a "No PvP" policy a house rule though. I also wouldn't call what some of us do a "No PvP" policy either. You can definitely have PvP - the players just have to negotiate that out on their own in a way that is fun for everyone and contributes to an exciting, memorable story.

 

[Guest 6801328]

So far as I can tell, the rules are mute on the matter of PvP. I even looked in the DMG earlier today to see if there was anything in the "Table Rules" section. It seems like if it was going to go anywhere, it should have been mentioned in that part, given as common as players wanting to mess with other players' characters is. A table rule gets people on the same page with regard to whether this is acceptable play at a given table.

Does that mean PvP is not an expectation of the game? I don't know. The rules talk about how "teamwork and cooperation greatly improve your party's chances to survive the many perils in the worlds of D&D," how adventurers work together in teams called a "party." I can find nothing in the books that talk about conflicts between characters and how they might be resolved mechanically. We're left to figure that out on our own, I suppose, using the rules provided as a framework.

I think I'd leave off on calling a "No PvP" policy a house rule though. I also wouldn't call what some of us do a "No PvP" policy either. You can definitely have PvP - the players just have to negotiate that out on their own in a way that is fun for everyone and contributes to an exciting, memorable story.

Sure. But the larger point is that 5e is intentionally vague on a lot of things, so for people to fall back on "well you are using a houserule" is kind of an eye roll.

 

[Guest 6801328]

To be fair, the title of the thread is “skills used by players on other players.” PvP is the main point of contention here. The reason agency is bound up in the discussion is because agency is a big part of why many DMs don’t allow PvP.

Yes, I realize that. But there are factions disagreeing about two things...PvP and agency...and much of [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s argument (which I ascribe to) has nothing to do with PvP, it only informs the way he handles PvP. The way you would handle an NPC trying to persuade a PC is exactly the way you handle a PC trying to persuade another PC: You simply ask the targeted player "What do you do?"

It's perfectly consistent and 100% in line with RAW, but when some people get frustrated trying to prove otherwise they seem to fall back on, "Well, if you want to houserule away PvP that's your business." His argument has nothing to do with PvP.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is the fundamental point of differentiation between the way you play and the way us folks on the other side of the argument play. In our play style, a player cannot ask to make a check. They can only describe what their character does in the fiction (and specific descriptive detail isn’t necessary, as long as there is a clear goal and approach to achieving that goal), and the DM narrates the results, possibly calling for the player to make a check if they feel it is necessary to determine the results.

Indeed. Not having played between AD&D (ending say 1992) and 5e (starting say 2015), it took me a while to realize (with help of some of y'all) that the whole "players self-assigning rolls" thing was an artifact of some of those editions in between. I have a player who is fairly new to 5e who initiates a non-combat skill roll at least once a session. I will just have to keep calmly reminding him to just give me a goal and approach and I'll let him know if a roll is even required. Hard to break the habits of prior editions, I suppose.

 

[iserith]

This is the fundamental point of differentiation between the way you play and the way us folks on the other side of the argument play. In our play style, a player cannot ask to make a check. They can only describe what their character does in the fiction (and specific descriptive detail isn’t necessary, as long as there is a clear goal and approach to achieving that goal), and the DM narrates the results, possibly calling for the player to make a check if they feel it is necessary to determine the results.

I'd be curious if [MENTION=57914]GameOgre[/MENTION] would feel the "roleplaying" is improved at his table if the players subscribed to this approach.

But I was also struck by his longer post in which he seemed to indicate that "roleplaying" isn't so much a player determining how the character thinks and acts, and what it says (which is what the rules define it as). Rather it seems the character's thoughts and reactions to the world aren't in the player's control precisely, but in the dice and statblock's control. Then the "roleplay" is the player acting out what the dice and statblocks tell them.

If that's an accurate assessment of his view - and I am trying to be charitable and not reductive - I have to wonder where that comes from. (Please let me know if I misinterpreted in any case.)

 

[Guest 6801328]

I'd be curious if [MENTION=57914]GameOgre[/MENTION] would feel the "roleplaying" is improved at his table if the players subscribed to this approach.

But I was also struck by his longer post in which he seemed to indicate that "roleplaying" isn't so much a player determining how the character thinks and acts, and what it says (which is what the rules define it as). Rather it seems the character's thoughts and reactions to the world aren't in the player's control precisely, but in the dice and statblock's control. Then the "roleplay" is the player acting out what the dice and statblocks tell them.

If that's an accurate assessment of his view - and I am trying to be charitable and not reductive - I have to wonder where that comes from. (Please let me know if I misinterpreted in any case.)

I've been thinking about this a lot, too. There's either something I don't understand or some inconsistency.

On the one hand I hear "Roleplaying IS inhabiting a character and asking what it would do."

And some of those same people say:

"If you ignore the dice you're not roleplaying."

Well...which is it? Are you asking what your character would do in this situation, or are you using the result of a die roll to tell you what to do?

Maybe it has something to do with the part I bolded: an over-emphasis on the statblock. As if "8 Int" tells us everything we need to know about how the character would respond to a certain stimulus.

(The 6-Int Genius Warlock lives on!!!!)