Skills used by players on other players.

[Sadras]

Players control their characters. But the party controls the party, if that makes sense. And that's why I as a DM am hesitant (unless asked to adjudicate) to intercede in intraparty actions like convincing B.A. to go along with the plan (or your party's equivalent).

Pretty much this. I bolded and changed the word from players to characters.
I only intervene when necessary or when called upon whether for insight, persuade, grapple check, see who is fastest, push, pull...etc.

Persuade may only work if there is a chance of success. The players will inform me if that possibility exists.

 

[iserith]

406 posts in and I think there's a cyclical argument happening...I've started skimming.

1. There's nothing wrong with using rolls to decide what your character will do, or using your stats as a guide to how your character will act. In fact, a 20 INT, (just as much as 5 Wisdom) might be the basis of many, many bad decisions if that character is arrogant enough to think they can outsmart everyone they encounter. So, rolling the dice to see if you might go against your better judgement for the sake of the character's foibles is perfectly acceptable, IMO.

2. There's nothing wrong with a player calling for a role if they think their character can be persuaded. "I know this is a totally bad idea and my character doesn't want to do this but he's just arrogant enough to think he can do it and come out ahead. Frank, Why don't you roll persuasion?" But there has to be player buy-in. Even if the DM calls for a roll, there has to be player buy-in. If the DM simply says, "Hey, Bob, is there any way that Frank can convince your character to help the village?" Bob needs to agree that there is and both players need to know what the stakes are if they fail to convince the other.

To be fair, I don't think anyone objects to "using rolls to decide what your character will do, or using stats as a guide to how your character will act." Some might not choose to do it, but it's reasonable in my view to use those things to inform your decisions as a player. Where the objection sits is when the DM, or perhaps another player in some cases, asking for that check and then expecting you to abide by the result or expecting you to portray the character according to some ill-defined number. And, what's more, trying to play it off like "Oh, it's not binding, you can play your character however you want," then judging that person harshly when they ignore the result of the check or the arbitrary meaning of the ability score.

This is a very clunky approach to the goal of achieving a particular play experience. If I was resolving this as a task in the game, it would have an extremely high DC or would be an automatic failure. It strikes me as a method cobbled together over many years and editions of the game with no revision or scrutiny that was crafted to try to corral players that are seen as a problem. And, you know, maybe those players are a problem. But this is not a great solution.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, fair enough. I should have added the caveat that once you understand the rationale that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] so eloquently expressed in this thread, and you still refuse to let the players just narrate their reactions, then it's an issue of trust and respect.

This is a blunt way to put it, but not entirely incorrect. To me, it's more using game mechanics to control for a difference in expectations. I believe the proper place for that is discussion and compromise with the players, not pushing it with the game, but it's not always easy to recognize tgat it's an expectation problem instead if a mechanics problem, especially if you've never though in those terms before.

 

[Bawylie]

Yeah, fair enough. I should have added the caveat that once you understand the rationale that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] so eloquently expressed in this thread, and you still refuse to let the players just narrate their reactions, then it's an issue of trust and respect.

Sorry - wasn’t arguing your/a post - just thinking out loud about why players reach for dice and Charlaquin’s post drew me down that path.

 

[Ovinomancer]

To be clear, I don't actually want to play a 5 Int Sherlock (or a 5 Int Genius!) either, and I also don't like farce in my games (with the exception of the good one line zinger here and there). I do feel very strongly that playing a 5 Int Sherlock isn't contrary to the rules, though, and a refusal to acknowledge that is a...canary test?...of a deeper issue about player agency and a right to contribute to the fiction.

In other words, it's fine to oppose it for aesthetic reason, as long as one is not claiming that it's "wrong".



Yes. And if I *did* want to play a drooling moron I might start with 5 Int, but that in itself is insufficient to describe the character.



Oh! THAT explains it! In this thread I keep thinking, "Man, I remember getting so mad at Ovinomancer and his style of argument that I came close to blocking him. But he's totally rational and reasonable. Maybe it's some other topic we disagree on...? Strange."

And, yeah, [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] have had a huge impact on my style, too. When are you guys going to kickstart a DMing guide?

Yeppers, that's me! For the record, my arguing style really hasn't changed much -- I throw my arguments pell mell into the fray to test them as harshly as possible. Debate as war, not sport! (Not really, but couldn't resist.) Seriously, I argue forcefully but I also listen, and I'll change my mind. On this point, it was a journey as I had some long held thinking and habits I had to wade through and discard. It's not easy to switch conceptual frameworks! I'm more open, but not necessarily more polite, now.

For what it's worth, you weren't a peach in that thread, either!

 

[Jester David]

Jumping in late.
It tricky in that social skills work all the time with other non-player characters. So why not PCs? But, players in general have a hard time surrendering control.

Think about it this way: should a high Charisma monster be able to roll a Persuasion check and convince the party they're friendly? Should a trained NPC combatant be able to Intimidate a Player Character into surrendering?
If after a successful Bluff check, you did not allow the players to continue to question or have doubts of someone and MUST believe them. Would that be well received?

 

[robus]

Oh! THAT explains it! In this thread I keep thinking, "Man, I remember getting so mad at Ovinomancer and his style of argument that I came close to blocking him. But he's totally rational and reasonable. Maybe it's some other topic we disagree on...? Strange."

And here people thought that thread callback was irrelevant...

 

[iserith]

Sorry - wasn’t arguing your/a post - just thinking out loud about why players reach for dice and Charlaquin’s post drew me down that path.

I do like the "ratification" idea. That makes a lot of sense. "It's not real until the dice say so." When really, players should be avoiding that d20 like the fickle, unreliable piece of plastic that it is.

 

[Guest 6801328]

For what it's worth, you weren't a peach in that thread, either!

No, probably not. I'm really not as much of an @$$hole as I sometimes become in internet debates. I always swear I'm going to reform, and not to rise to bait, and yet somehow....

 

[clearstream]

There's some bit of truth to saying "it's uncertain if the DM decides it is", but indulge me for a moment.

The question I'm trying to ask is how can a DM that is not in control of a PC's thoughts, decide if an NPC or other PC attempting to persuade him is uncertain? Of course the DM is going to ultimately decide if it's uncertain, but I wanna know how a DM is going to make that decision. So, if you were the DM and deciding whether an NPC or other PC attempting to persuade a PC was uncertain give me some examples of what would cause you to call that situation uncertain.

So as you know I work from a clear separation of player and character. There are a few reasons for this.

"...you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts and talks." has been cited (PHB 181) and dwelt on. The first observation I can make is simple, "player" is on one side doing the "determining", and "character" is on the other doing "thinks, acts and talks".

A second observation follows directly from that: thinking, acting, and talking are all together on the character side. If I concede that mechanics can mediate how a character acts, then the wording implies that those same mechanics can mediate how a character thinks or talks. I could conjure up special reasons for separating "thinks" out, but for me that runs into a problem: spells are mechanics and they can mediate how a character thinks. I could then additionally say that with regard to "thinks", spells are in a special category away from all other game mechanics. For me, the problem with that approach is that there are class and race features (such as Warlock and Eladrin features) that are not spells but that again, can mediate how a character thinks. So I need to extend my special category to include spells, and class and race features. Alternatively, I could say that skills are the special case, and that skill game mechanics, uniquely, can't mediate thinks. I prefer the simpler understanding of the system: game mechanics can mediate character "thinks, acts, and talks."

So then I think about what "determining" might mean? For me it fits with the core loop explained a few pages earlier (PHB 181). Players describe what they want their characters to do. The DM never controls that, but players can't describe their characters doing things that aren't possible for them once mediated through the rules, such as a player can't decide that their character flies, without something in game (i.e. mechanical) to enable that flying. It seems that "determining" is in the sense of both decide and ascertain. Where ascertaining respects the game narrative and mechanics. In summary, I don't separate out "thinks" from "acts" or "talks", nor do I say that spells are a special category of game mechanics in regard to any such separating out, any more than I concede class or race features are. Or skills. Players are on one side, involved in deciding and ascertaining - mediated through the game mechanics - with characters staying firmly in the game world on the other side. Along with their (character) thinking, acting and talking. That does not mean that I see those things as equal in terms of how they should best be mediated.

Anyway, thank you all for a really interesting thread. I feel I've gained a few ideas to bring back to my own group, and had a chance to dig more deeply into this thorny matter, and see how others view it. I don't denigrate those views, even though I don't share them.