D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

there is no uncertainty until there is...

- Confucius (at some point, presumably)

yes it is... stats show how 'strong/healthy/smart/charasmatic the monster is and skill prof shows what they are good at. add togather how inately they are stated and how skilled they are and you get a number... most of the time we add a d20 for variable, but I guess you could just say +5.

That is not what the rules surrounding ability checks describe. It’s certainly something a DM can decide to do, it just isn’t what the rules instruct them to do.

and again and again and again this is right up there with the reverse... if the player tries to intimadate the orc the DM is in control of the orc he doesn't HAVE to call for a roll... but they CAN...

Yes, they can. There are three approaches to when to call for dice rolls in the DMG. “Rolling with it” and “ignoring the dice” are both described as having drawbacks, whereas “the middle path” - rolling when actions could succeed or fail and have meaningful stakes - is not described as having any drawbacks.

the player can

That’s not normally a part of the player’s role as laid out in the How to Play rules. Not to say that a group couldn’t decide to do so anyway.

the description comes with a game mechanic number

Nothing in the How to Play rules suggests that the DM’s description of the environment ought to be based on any particular numbers.

sure they do. You just don't read them the way others do. the very fact that we have this argument (not me and you but enworld in general) every few years should show that some people read the rules and see it diffrent then you...

Obviously different people can read the same rules and arrive at different interpretations. Of course “no one reads the DMG” is a running joke in the community, and I’ve found a lot of the ways people interpret the rules to be based at least as much on the methods they’ve found to be successful running previous editions of the game as it is on the words printed in the 5e rule books, if not more so. Which is valid, but not the way I prefer to run 5e.

nobody answered me... since I don't use insperation, how would it effect the orc roll? I thought it was to give advantage to PC rolls, so what am I missing?

Nothing. You said you don’t use inspiration because your players forget to use it, I explained that players remembering to use Inspiration is one of the advantages of my approach to calling for rolls. It’s a tangent that happened to arise organically during the conversation.

you could ask. Again I don't use it but I use the lucky feat, I have had players ask "is it worth me throwing a lucky point?"

Sure, you could do that. I haven’t found it necessary because with my approach to calling for rolls, the players always know a check will have meaningful consequences for failure, and I tell them any such consequences their character could reasonably discern. But if you prefer to call for checks to establish descriptive details sometimes and don’t like to tell the players the potential consequences for failure before they roll, this might be a useful way to insure they can predict when a roll is consequential enough to spend resources like inspiration on and when it isn’t.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have to say that I've very, very glad that our group accepts the idea of rolls impacting their decisions. If a player lies to another, they roll deceit vs. insight and play it out as they would against an NPC. Same for a persuasion check. To us, the rolls have a meaning, and we should adjust our RP to reflect this. Also like the rules, if there's absolutely no chance for success (or failure) no roll is made.

I think this is totally valid, and for those who think it's a fun way to game, that's great. It's not my cup of tea, but that's cool.

The only thing I object to is when somebody starts claiming that other ways are playing are wrong, or "not roleplaying", or whatever, despite lack of textual support.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Maybe it's just the years of Cthulhu and Ravenloft speaking, but I'm finding these fearless PC's eyerolling. Other games, like Fate and Savage Worlds have conditions and aspects that NPC's can place on the players, and people just accept it as part of the game. I don't recall anyone whining when their SW character gets Shaken, or they suffer some sanity loss finding a dead body. The rules are there to spackle over the disconnect between player and character. It's super easy to go "yeah yeah, I'll chew on that broken glass to appease the gang members" because it isn't YOU suffering. You ain't afraid of no ghost, but is your character? Grab the dice and roleplay the result.

Why is this such an issue with D&D players? Maybe because D&D is basically just a power fantasy, so people get into a Billy Badass mentality when playing? Are we more at fault for trying to inject more elements of in-character simulation in a game that simply isn't really set up to handle it mechanically?

 

[Umbran]

PHB, page 185: "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." (Emphasis designers.)

Yes, but as with most rights (in this case the player has a right to determine those things) have limits.

If the PC walks down a dungeon hall, and a pit opens beneath them, the player doesn't generally have the right to say, "I just walk across the open air without assistance." There are times when what the character does (like, say, fall) is not in the player's control. There are times when their actions and emotions are similarly not under their control - Fear effects come to mind as an example, forcing the character to run.

The rule, as stated, has exceptions.

 

[iserith]

Maybe it's just the years of Cthulhu and Ravenloft speaking, but I'm finding these fearless PC's eyerolling. Other games, like Fate and Savage Worlds have conditions and aspects that NPC's can place on the players, and people just accept it as part of the game. I don't recall anyone whining when their SW character gets Shaken, or they suffer some sanity loss finding a dead body. The rules are there to spackle over the disconnect between player and character. It's super easy to go "yeah yeah, I'll chew on that broken glass to appease the gang members" because it isn't YOU suffering. You ain't afraid of no ghost, but is your character? Grab the dice and roleplay the result.

Why is this such an issue with D&D players? Maybe because D&D is basically just a power fantasy, so people get into a Billy Badass mentality when playing? Are we more at fault for trying to inject more elements of in-character simulation in a game that simply isn't really set up to handle it mechanically?

It is set up to handle it mechanically, just not through ability checks. It sits in the space of personality traits, ideals, flaws, and bonds plus Inspiration for playing to those. There are plenty of examples in backgrounds of "cowardly" flaws or the like. If I've got the "I turn tail when things look bad" flaw and the DM describes an orc trying to intimidate my character, I will absolutely run away if I can get some Inspiration out of it, provided doing so is not more costly than gaining the resource.

What is interesting to me though is that a lot of the people who try to use ability checks for this purpose in some way (even as just color) often correlates with people who don't use the BIFT+Inspiration mechanics. Maybe there's some connection here.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Rolling dice to determine “how intimidating is the orc” is no different from rolling dice to determine what’s on the menu at the tavern: if the DM finds it a useful aid, go for it. But it has nothing to do with the rules of the game.

It's really no different than rolling dice to see if the orc sneaks up on you. Why is "Nah, I'm not scared" OK and not "Nah, I see the orc"?

 

[iserith]

Yes, but as with most rights (in this case the player has a right to determine those things) have limits.

If the PC walks down a dungeon hall, and a pit opens beneath them, the player doesn't generally have the right to say, "I just walk across the open air without assistance." There are times when what the character does (like, say, fall) is not in the player's control. There are times when their actions and emotions are similarly not under their control - Fear effects come to mind as an example, forcing the character to run.

The rule, as stated, has exceptions.

I've already acknowledged that magical compulsion or the like is an exception a couple times in the thread and even referenced the section of the rules that discusses complications when walking across a room. I doubt anyone disagrees there are limits.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

It is set up to handle it mechanically, just not through ability checks. It sits in the space of personality traits, ideals, flaws, and bonds plus Inspiration for playing to those. There are plenty of examples in backgrounds of "cowardly" flaws or the like. If I've got the "I turn tail when things look bad" flaw and the DM describes an orc trying to intimidate my character, I will absolutely run away if I can get some Inspiration out of it, provided doing so is not more costly than gaining the resource.

What is interesting to me though is that a lot of the people who try to use ability checks for this purpose in some way (even as just color) often correlates with people who don't use the BIFT+Inspiration mechanics. Maybe there's some connection here.

BIFT is all player buy-in though, and ties to D&D just being mainly good at adolescent power fantasies. I realize in the diceless world of master class role players you inhabit, it's not an issue, but for the rest of us hoi polloi rules are a nice bridge to remind players that their character actually lives in the world and experiences things differently than the folks sitting around a table, very removed from danger, doubt and pain. A character doesn't/shouldnt't have to have a core concept of being cowardly to be intimidated.

 

[Maxperson]

A DM/group would be completely justified under 5e RAW in saying a skill check does not tell a PC how to act, they determine their own thoughts and actions. There is also support for an interpretation that a skill check can affect PCs and there can be a table understanding to roleplay out check results the same as if magic induced an influence on the character.

I disagree with the bolded portion. Lack of an explicit statement that skills only affect NPCs is not support for an interpretation that they do affect PCs.

There's not one shred of anything that gives an example of a social skill being used on a PC, while literally the entire Social Interaction portion of the DMG talks about PCs using those skills to influence NPCs. Even the PHB ability score section gives every social example as one where the book is clearly talking to the player(...the DM might ask you...) and deals with a PC that is trying to influence an NPC.

There's no support at all for social skills to affect PCs, and the intent seems very clear to me that RAI is for them not to work on PCs.

 

[iserith]

BIFT is all player buy-in though, and ties to D&D just being mainly good at adolescent power fantasies. I realize in the diceless world of master class role players you inhabit, it's not an issue, but for the rest of us hoi polloi rules are a nice bridge to remind players that their character actually lives in the world and experiences things differently that the folks sitting around a table very removed from danger. A character doesn't/shouldnt't have to have a core concept of being cowardly to be intimidated.

Lots of dice are thrown around in my game. Just not to determine what the character thinks. I don't see how BIFTs are necessarily about "adolescent power fantasies." I'm also not stating that a character must have a flaw like the one I referenced in order to act intimidated, but having an incentive to act according to established characterization tends to mean players will do that enough to make it a regular part of the character's portrayal. And that's true in my experience even when I'm not playing with my master class roleplaying regular group, but also in one-shots with casuals and strangers. You know, the hoi polloi.