Skills used by players on other players.

[Oofta]

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.

I guess that aspect of the game doesn't bother me, as long as the intent of the request is clear. Sometimes a quick "I make ___ roll" tells me everything I need to know; it's just a useful shortcut. Occasionally I'll ask for clarification. While I encourage people to state things in terms of what they're trying to accomplish, I'm just not that picky on how they communicate it. Same way that I encourage people to speak in-character but occasionally allow a simple "I tell them __". It's just not a big deal.

To me, the gist I got from the OP (the story seems to have shifted a bit, but it may just be clarification) comes down to how you handle social skills. So in this case we have the bard trying to convince the barbarian to do something. The furthest I would ever go is say something along the lines of "The bard seems to be sincere and makes a convincing argument" followed by "How do you respond?"

Where I think a line is crossed is telling the barbarian that he must do what the bard asked. Or the declaration that the player is not running the PC "correctly" because as a DM I thought they should listen to the bard. It reduces the barbarian to a set of numbers on a paper. We're in roll playing territory where dice dictate who the character is, not whether or not they can accomplish something they're trying to do.

Personally, that's the way I run NPCs as well. For standard guard #153, I may use the guidelines from the DMG for influencing disposition but for NPCs I've actually put some thought into I'm going to try to run them as unique individuals. To each their own.

 

[FrogReaver]

Also out of curiosity, does anyone have NPC’s make persuade checks against PC’s?

 

[iserith]

I think when we're saying "pay" we're saying "play the character's faults" or "play the character as written". If you've got a dumb or weak willed character who suddenly sprouts iron-willed resistance to a charming character's arguments....well this seems the same as if the physically weak character simply declares that he resists the grapple of the stronger character or something like that. That is to say, if we would resolve the physical conflict with dice, then we should resolve the social conflict with dice as well. (D&D may not be particularly suited to this sort of thing, but that's a different discussion.*)

The potential conflict is in a perceived loss of player agency on the part of the weak-willed character and a de-protagonization of the charming character. Some of mentioned that they just remove the part of player agency that would allow for PvP die-rolling entirely. To me, that seems an incomplete and somewhat heavy-handed, but that can vary from table to table.

This can be problematic in at least one way when a player attempts to make up for his character's written stats with their own Intelligence or Charisma. That is, the 8 Charisma PC who nonetheless fast-talks his way past the guards because the player fast-talked the DM, or the 8 Int PC solves the complex mathematical cypher puzzle using his player's physics degree. I'm not sure I'd call it cheating so much as unsporting.

In D&D 5e, a character's faults are largely defined by his or her personal characteristics though which are a far better marker in my experience than "whatever an 8 means." The rules give only cursory advice that amounts to "it could mean this or it could mean that..." and "a score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average." A personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw is specific and also tied to an incentive to portray the character in the fashion described (assuming the group uses Inspiration). One of the characters in my regular campaign has a flaw of "I am very literal and dumber than a box of rocks." So at least one time per session, he demonstrates that (and boy does he) and earns Inspiration. I don't even know what his Intelligence is and wouldn't care if it's a 20.

I wonder how many people who buy into ability scores meaning something important with regard to the character's portrayal also use personal characteristics and Inspiration. My gut says they don't, by and large, but that is a total guess based only on the vibe I get from this and similar discussions over the past few years. If that's true, then we have a group of people who have the same goal as many of us, but whose chosen solution doesn't appear to be very effective.

Does character A talking to character B to try to convince them of a course of action count as conflict? I mean, IRL and in the genre sources, characters will discuss things or argue with each other a lot. I don't think we're talking about something like "give me your wallet", but more like "let's go defend the village before we go hunting the orcs." (Then again, its not like picking your friend's pocket is unheard of in the relevant media, either.)

The rest of what your talking about will vary quite a bit from table to table. Some groups start and end at the dungeon entrance while others spend tons of time politicking around town. Part of being a good GM would be taking a clue from the players' choices and characters' stats and tailoring adventures so that folks get a reasonable chance to shine. However, we are not all blessed with such DMs. ::shrug::

I don't know that there is a universally applicable answer to this question. However, I have seen far more (especially old-school, it would seem) folks who would forbid the social skill checks for "Can I try to Persuade him that we should protect the village?" but cheerfully let the dice roll for "Enough! I try to cut the thief down for his insolence." and that, IMO, leads to a broken game.

I know that in my games, if the players are portraying a disagreement, it's done for color. The players know that they will settle on the first idea that was proffered (with subsequent additions) anyway, so any in-fighting is just for funsies and is resolved in a minute or so. And even that is rare because we got 4 hours to play and sh-stuff to do. Ain't got time for throwing dice at each other when there are worlds to save and glory to be had!

 

[ccs]

Quote Originally Posted by GameOgre View Post

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.

And your response is a perfect example of the wording/phrasing games I'm on record as not playing.

When one of my players says something like this I understand & accept that they're trying to do something. Sometimes the answer to their question will be "yeah sure, go ahead" (usually they're just ahead of me asking for the roll anyways....), sometimes no (with a reason given), and sometimes further discussion/clarification is needed. All of this works just fine because we're just a group of friends sitting around the table BSing about killing dragons etc. We're OK with it all sounding a bit sloppy. It doesn't need to conform to some idealistic form.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Quote Originally Posted by GameOgre View Post

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



And your response is a perfect example of the wording/phrasing games I'm on record as not playing.

When one of my players says something like this I understand & accept that they're trying to do something. Sometimes the answer to their question will be "yeah sure, go ahead" (usually they're just ahead of me asking for the roll anyways....), sometimes no (with a reason given), and sometimes further discussion/clarification is needed. All of this works just fine because we're just a group of friends sitting around the table BSing about killing dragons etc. We're OK with it all sounding a bit sloppy. It doesn't need to conform to some idealistic form.

I get this. It seems harmless to say "Can I make a Perception check?" instead of describing "I'm going to look around and see if I notice anything" then wait for the DM to say, "Give me a Perception check." And it saves time, right?

But this thread shows the danger of being casual about that. It so easily blurs the line, and leads to the mindset that players get to declare when they are going to "use a skill". Eventually we end up with "I'm going to use my Persuade skill on this other member of my party..." and for some people this seems totally normal.

 

[ccs]

Also out of curiosity, does anyone have NPC’s make persuade checks against PC’s?

Yes.
In games I run just being a PC offers you no particular protection.
PCs & NPCs can effect each other,
NPCs can effect other NPCs,
And PCs can effect other PCs.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yes.
In games I run just being a PC offers you no particular protection.
PCs & NPCs can effect each other,
NPCs can effect other NPCs,
And PCs can effect other PCs.

Protection from what?

"Persuade" isn't an offensive spell.

EDIT: As others have said earlier, @iserith's method treats all examples in the exact same way:

1) Something is described
2) Players state goals and methods (or DMs state goals and methods for NPCs)
3) If outcomes are uncertain, roll some dice

So let's look at all four combinations:

An NPC tries to persuade another NPC:
Both are under control of the DM. If he so chooses (say, if he wants to leave the result to chance rather than insert his own bias) he can roll Persuade and use the result.

A PC tries to persuade an NPC:
The target is under the control of the DM. Again, if he wants to avoid relying on his own biases, he can as for a Persuade roll, and then interpret accordingly. That is, a high roll doesn't automatically mean the PC gets whatever he wants.

A PC tries to persuade another PC:
The target is under the control of the player. If the player thinks the outcome is uncertain he/she is free to ask for the first player to roll Persuade to get a sense of how persuasive their character was, and can use that to help inform their response. But, just as with the NPC above, even a high roll doesn't mean the PC is required to do what the first PC is asking. All it means is that the first PC was very persuasive. (That might very well enrage the target PC.)

An NPC tries to persuade a PC:
Exactly the same as above.

Conclusion:
1) It's the exact same process in all situations
2) In no situation is any PC or NPC required to take any particular action in response to another characters attempt to persuade.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Quote Originally Posted by GameOgre View Post

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



And your response is a perfect example of the wording/phrasing games I'm on record as not playing.

When one of my players says something like this I understand & accept that they're trying to do something. Sometimes the answer to their question will be "yeah sure, go ahead" (usually they're just ahead of me asking for the roll anyways....), sometimes no (with a reason given), and sometimes further discussion/clarification is needed. All of this works just fine because we're just a group of friends sitting around the table BSing about killing dragons etc. We're OK with it all sounding a bit sloppy. It doesn't need to conform to some idealistic form.

I get this. It seems harmless to say "Can I make a Perception check?" instead of describing "I'm going to look around and see if I notice anything" then wait for the DM to say, "Give me a Perception check." And it saves time, right?

But this thread shows the danger of being casual about that. It so easily blurs the line, and leads to the mindset that players get to declare when they are going to "use a skill". Eventually we end up with "I'm going to use my Persuade skill on this other member of my party..." and for some people this seems totally normal.

No one is asking for correct wording or phrasing in order to succeed at a task as far as I'm aware. Well, perhaps there is a time for that (e.g. Speak "friend" and enter), but in general that would be an exhausting way to play and pretty un-fun in my book, too. Many of us find the game is best played when a player simply describes what their character is doing and what the character is hoping to accomplish by doing it, using whatever wording the player wants. A DM can ask them to clarify, too, but that doesn't mean the DM is looking to play word games. The player just invoking a "skill" here is, IMO, the most uninteresting way to do it and not really role-playing. That becomes a game of punching buttons on a character sheet which, to me, is one step away from playing a video game which is not what I signed up to do when I decided to run or play in a D&D session.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I get this. It seems harmless to say "Can I make a Perception check?" instead of describing "I'm going to look around and see if I notice anything" then wait for the DM to say, "Give me a Perception check." And it saves time, right?

But this thread shows the danger of being casual about that. It so easily blurs the line, and leads to the mindset that players get to declare when they are going to "use a skill". Eventually we end up with "I'm going to use my Persuade skill on this other member of my party..." and for some people this seems totally normal.

Agreed. My response to "Can I make a Perception check?" is, "Why? What are you doing?" or (stealing a line from Apocalypse World), "Cool, what does that look like?"

As a GM, I need to know details of what the character is doing, where they are moving, if they are touching anything or not (vitally important for contact poison traps and the plaintive cry "but I didn't say I was touching the chest!"), if the other characters are being quiet to help with listening, if they are using any tools (telescope, for example), etc, etc, etc.

It is never as simple as "yes, just make a Perception check."

Also, there is no such thing as a "Perception Check" - there is a 'Wisdom Check" or a "Wisdom check, Perception proficiency applies". Yes, I know that's picky but I think it is important. Skill proficiencies are not always tied to the same Ability Score.

 

[ccs]

I get this. It seems harmless to say "Can I make a Perception check?" instead of describing "I'm going to look around and see if I notice anything" then wait for the DM to say, "Give me a Perception check." And it saves time, right?

But this thread shows the danger of being casual about that. It so easily blurs the line, and leads to the mindset that players get to declare when they are going to "use a skill". Eventually we end up with "I'm going to use my Persuade skill on this other member of my party..." and for some people this seems totally normal.

Yeah, well, casuals been working just fine for myself & everyone I've ever played with* for nearly 40 years. So I'm not inclined to believe we're in any great danger. As such I'll not be changing how I DM.
(*A very large #, including some true s)