Skills used by players on other players.

GameOgre said:

I at no time demand anyone act like anything.

Click to expand...

Except this is contradicted by the rest of your post:

I simply think the player field should be equal. If you are going to empower some pc's and not other pc's those left out will over time cease to exist.

But it this way. If in my games I house rules sneak attack out of the game and skills as well. None would ever play rogues. Rogues as a class would cease to exist.

If you enable combat oriented pc's and yet not allow social characters to use their abilities in the same way then soon you will not have any social characters.

Click to expand...

Maybe your GOAL isn't to demand people act a certain way, but the adjudication you are espousing can only result in exactly that. (As a side note, your choice of wording calls to mind the disingenuous language politicians sometimes use to promote policies that have unseemly ulterior motives...)

This isn't theory I have done this in the past. I used to think the same way others do and social skills were for npc's only. Over time the players would swap out social characters for pure combat builds and when asked about it would say"why should I make a social character? They are gimped when using their abilities around the people they are around the most. 90% of my characters interactions are done with the same totally immune people who don't seem to ever want to role play their characters in such a way as to allow my characters strengths to shine. No Thanks"

Click to expand...

And this makes no sense to me. Are they emphasizing their combat skills because 90% of the time they are around other PCs and need to fight them?

As @iserith suggests, maybe you're not giving your players enough social interaction with NPCs.

To be honest this group is made out of players with different play styles.

Several members are tactical oriented gamers. They play with little actual role playing at all and seem to view things almost from a video game perspective. They also tend towards power-gamer builds. Even joking"We head back to the quest npc". The Barbarian pc is one of them.

Several are not tactical at all. They enjoy role playing and at least one of them doesn't even own the players handbook. They tend to role play even so far as to choose horrible options for their character like double crossing the thieves guild, because it fits what that character would do. The CHA oriented rogue with persuasion expertise is one of these.

For the most part the group does ok. The tactical guys rule the battlefields and the role players rule the social aspects of the game. Neither side seems to want to invest too heavily in the other areas.

It's only when one side gets aggressive with the other that things go sideways.

GameOgre said:

To be honest this group is made out of players with different play styles.

Several members are tactical oriented gamers. They play with little actual role playing at all and seem to view things almost from a video game perspective. They also tend towards power-gamer builds. Even joking"We head back to the quest npc". The Barbarian pc is one of them.

Several are not tactical at all. They enjoy role playing and at least one of them doesn't even own the players handbook. They tend to role play even so far as to choose horrible options for their character like double crossing the thieves guild, because it fits what that character would do. The CHA oriented rogue with persuasion expertise is one of these.

For the most part the group does ok. The tactical guys rule the battlefields and the role players rule the social aspects of the game. Neither side seems to want to invest too heavily in the other areas.

It's only when one side gets aggressive with the other that things go sideways.

Click to expand...

Who was the aggressor in this situation?

GameOgre said:

To be honest this group is made out of players with different play styles.

Several members are tactical oriented gamers. They play with little actual role playing at all and seem to view things almost from a video game perspective. They also tend towards power-gamer builds. Even joking"We head back to the quest npc". The Barbarian pc is one of them.

Several are not tactical at all. They enjoy role playing and at least one of them doesn't even own the players handbook. They tend to role play even so far as to choose horrible options for their character like double crossing the thieves guild, because it fits what that character would do. The CHA oriented rogue with persuasion expertise is one of these.

For the most part the group does ok. The tactical guys rule the battlefields and the role players rule the social aspects of the game. Neither side seems to want to invest too heavily in the other areas.

It's only when one side gets aggressive with the other that things go sideways.

Click to expand...

I think there's a few ways to deal with this sort of setup. First, consider that roleplaying is just determining what your character thinks, how it acts, and what it says. Nothing else. That's all roleplaying is. To that end, even your "tactical-oriented gamers" are roleplaying when they have their characters do stuff.

If you want the players to portray specific, clearly-defined aspects of those characters, then that's where personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws - and Inspiration - come into play. I discuss a way to handle Inspiration here so that it's really engaging and easy for the DM. Having advantage in your back pocket is a great resource and your "tactical-oriented gamers" may well chase after it as a result. Your "not tactical players" will also be rewarded for what they are already doing (presumably).

Then I would suggest reviewing the rules for social interactions in the DMG and work on setting up social interaction challenges along those lines. In a nutshell, it breaks down to engaging with an NPC with a set starting attitude (hostile, indifferent, friendly) who has an agenda or instinct plus personal characteristics on par with the PCs (personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws). He or she has something the PCs want and beating it out of the NPC isn't possible, desirable, or optimal. The game then becomes something of a tactical situation where some PCs are trying to figure out the agenda or characteristics during the conversation (which may call for a Wisdom (Insight) check) and then this or other PCs leveraging that information by playing to the agenda or characteristics to gain advantage on subsequent Charisma ability checks (if any) to improve the NPC's attitude temporarily. The better the NPC's attitude when it's time for the PCs to finally make their demand or request, the lower the DCs for any resulting ability check to resolve whether the NPC does as asked. I find this is often enough of a challenge where the whole party needs to be involved in the scene, including the "tactical-oriented gamers."

Elfcrusher said:

Let's say I'm trying to run something with a gothic horror feel, for example, and one guy's idea of a good time is to show up as "The Count". Yes, from Sesame Street..

Click to expand...

Oh man! That would be hilariously awesome. Add in Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Kermit the Frog and that would be the best Ravenloft game ever.



. . . we might not actually share the same definition of "best."

Hriston said:

The Basic Rules give a couple definitions of roleplaying under “Social Interaction”. The first is a general definition: “Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role.” This tells us nothing about who determines what a particular role entails. The second definition is D&D-specific: “In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.” (emphasis added)

It isn’t me, or any other player at the table, that determines those things for your character. It’s you. And given that D&D is an RPG, that’s what we’re all here for, to make those decisions for ourselves. Anything that takes that away from a player (barring magical exceptions, of course) undermines the basic activity of playing the game.

However, this doesn’t mean there’s no mechanical option for influencing the thoughts and actions of another player’s PC. It just means the social interaction mechanics are not it. You have to work with the player, not against him/her. 5E has given us this lovely tool called Inspiration. By framing requests, arguments, threats, etc. in terms which speak to the personal characteristics of a PC, another character can gain influence over his/her decision making by creating an opportunity for that PC’s player to gain Inspiration, incentivizing an otherwise undesirable choice.

The premise of my games includes PCs’ personal characteristics being commonly known by all the players at the table, but even at tables where they aren’t, they could be learned through a successful Insight check as they can from NPCs.

Click to expand...

A case that troubles me is thinking about Strength (Athletics) for a grapple, versus Charisma (Persuasion) to persuade. You, as the player, can't determine that your character isn't grappled, if you lose the contest against an NPC's Strength (Athletics). You could well say "I walk away from the NPC", choosing not to ignore that your Speed has been made 0 in that situation: the skill check overrides your decision. So far as I understand, many people agree with that. Implying that perhaps many people agree that a skill check can override a player decision. A similar case can be made for Dexterity (Stealth). I think many people would agree that ordinarily, a player can't decide to see a hidden PC or NPC.

This line of reasoning makes me hypothesise that it's not just about "you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts and talks", because in the cited instances skill checks override that. You don't get to act how you want, if what you want is to walk away from a successful grapple or perceive a successful hider. For me this suggests a couple of options.

One option is that you get to determine how your character intends to think, act and talk, but that is then mediated through game mechanics. Overwhelmingly, that's what happens at the table. "I decide to hit the Orc"... "Okay, roll dice according to the game mechanics and we will see if your intended action happens".

Another option is that the above is generally true, except for certain skills, which are a special exception. I actually think this is fine as an argument, but what I want to know is why are they a special exception? I think we can point to a confounding aspect to social skills. In the case of being grappled, my game avatar has its speed made 0: nothing interferes with my intent to walk away. I just can't. Whereas with an application of social skills, such as a PC persuading me to stay put, it could feel like my intent is being rewritten: I can't even form an intent to walk away. I think this is ignoring the essential duality of the player-game relationship (see Miguel Sicart for more detail on that). What could really be happening in both instances is this -

#1 Clearstream the real life player forms an intent that Dross, their character and avatar in the game, will walk away. They tell the DM this.
#2a Dross is grappled. It's understood that Dross wants to walk away, but the avatar's speed is 0.
#2b Dross is diplomanced. It's understood that Dross doesn't want to walk away, regardless of the avatar's speed.

In each case, it's you - the player - that made all the decisions. Those decisions were mediated into the game world in different ways, depending on what game mechanics were in play.

Something like that is roughly the argument I'm looking at. I think so far it hasn't been addressed.

Here’s what I do, for any PvP action whether physical, social, or otherwise:

The action is resolved, as per the conversation of the game: the player initiating the action describes what they want to accomplish, and how their character attempts to accomplish it, in which terms of the fiction. The DM determines the results of the action, potentially calling for a check to resolve uncertainty in the outcome, then narrates the results. Except I have the player of the targeted character act in the DM’s roll in this case. So, if Nico’s character attacks Adrian’s character, Adrian decides if the action has a chance of success, a chance of failure, a consequence for failure, and if so, what sort of check needs to be made, if any, to resolve that uncertainty, and narrates the results, same way I would of an NPC or monster was the target.

Shoutout to Isereth for giving me the idea.

clearstream said:

A case that troubles me is thinking about Strength (Athletics) for a grapple, versus Charisma (Persuasion) to persuade. You, as the player, can't determine that your character isn't grappled, if you lose the contest against an NPC's Strength (Athletics). You could well say "I walk away from the NPC", choosing not to ignore that your Speed has been made 0 in that situation: the skill check overrides your decision. So far as I understand, many people agree with that. Implying that perhaps many people agree that a skill check can override a player decision. A similar case can be made for Dexterity (Stealth). I think many people would agree that ordinarily, a player can't decide to see a hidden PC or NPC.

This line of reasoning makes me hypothesise that it's not just about "you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts and talks", because in the cited instances skill checks override that. You don't get to act how you want, if what you want is to walk away from a successful grapple or perceive a successful hider. For me this suggests a couple of options.

One option is that you get to determine how your character intends to think, act and talk, but that is then mediated through game mechanics. Overwhelmingly, that's what happens at the table. "I decide to hit the Orc"... "Okay, roll dice according to the game mechanics and we will see if your intended action happens".

Another option is that the above is generally true, except for certain skills, which are a special exception. I actually think this is fine as an argument, but what I want to know is why are they a special exception? I think we can point to a confounding aspect to social skills. In the case of being grappled, my game avatar has its speed made 0: nothing interferes with my intent to walk away. I just can't. Whereas with an application of social skills, such as a PC persuading me to stay put, it could feel like my intent is being rewritten: I can't even form an intent to walk away. I think this is ignoring the essential duality of the player-game relationship (see Miguel Sicart for more detail on that). What could really be happening in both instances is this -

Click to expand...

While I still think there's some confusion here about the nature of ability checks and their relation to the fiction, one could easily say that it's the Strength (Athletics) checks or the like which are the "special exception" to the general rule of the player determining how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks.

iserith said:

While I still think there's some confusion here about the nature of ability checks and their relation to the fiction, one could easily say that it's the Strength (Athletics) checks or the like which are the "special exception" to the general rule of the player determining how his or her character thinks, acts, and talks.

Click to expand...

“In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.”

Player: I hit the orc.
DM: Your character needs to make an attack roll.
Player: I hide from Joe.
DM: Okay, Joe we're using your character's passive Perception unless you're taking time to search, Bob make a Stealth check using your character's Dexterity (Stealth) skill.
Player: I resist the Mindflayer's blast!
DM: Your character needs to make a saving throw.

What you seem to end up saying is that every rule in the game except skill checks that use Charisma, is a special exception to that general rule. It feels valid to question that. Once we take into account the player-character duality, what is happening that is concretely different? Sure, in every case the player has intentions, and in every other case those are mediated through game mechanics.

clearstream said:

“In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.”

Player: I hit the orc.
DM: Your character needs to make an attack roll.
Player: I hide from Joe.
DM: Okay, Joe we're using your character's passive Perception unless you're taking time to search, Bob make a Stealth check using your character's Dexterity (Stealth) skill.
Player: I resist the Mindflayer's blast!
DM: Your character needs to make a saving throw.

What you seem to end up saying is that every rule in the game except skill checks that use Charisma, is a special exception to that general rule. It feels valid to question that. Once we take into account the player-character duality, what is happening that is concretely different? Sure, in every case the player has intentions, and in every other case those are mediated through game mechanics.

Click to expand...

I've explained like 10x in this thread what the difference is.
1. Skill checks require uncertainty.
2. A player decides how their character thinks and acts and talks.
3. Because of this it's the players decision to decide if there's even the possibility of the bard persuading him to do whatever it is the bard is trying to persuade him to do.
4. This is inherently different than almost every other skill check as none of them have an inherent dependency on the PC's thoughts