D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

My players do roleplay their characters being scared and whatnot. I’m also not opposed to mechanics like the ones you’re describing - I loved Conditions in Chronicles of Darkness for example. I just don’t think they’re supported in the rules of D&D 5e. Different games play differently than each other, and that’s good.

Yes, exactly.

There seems to be a misconception that people who point out that certain rules don't exist in D&D 5e are therefore opposed to ever roleplaying their characters in a non-optimal way. But it's not about "my character never shows weakness" it's about who gets to decide what those weaknesses are.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

The player can say their PC attempts to do whatever they like. Some things they attempt to do, like walking across the open air above a pit without magical assistance, obviously, may not work in the game world. After all, p185 does call out that the player is in charge of how the “character thinks, acts, and talks.” “Acts” does not necessarily equal “does”.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Here's another chance to rehash old discussions!

As for whether you should, that's up to you and your group. Whether it's supported by the rules, I would say they aren't.

the rules are only suggestions, and nothing suggests that I can't use skills to cover all the senses that we can't even all name...
And no I don't care how good of a DM you are, no matter how great your description is you will never relay all the information the character would have in game.

 

[iserith]

the rules are only suggestions, and nothing suggests that I can't use skills to cover all the senses that we can't even all name...
And no I don't care how good of a DM you are, no matter how great your description is you will never relay all the information the character would have in game.

Again, you do what you and your group like. As long as there are no assertions here that the rules support calling for ability checks to determine how a PC responds to an attempt to persuade, intimidate, or deceive them or that ability checks are supposed to be made for color, or that players are supposed to determine the DC necessary to intimidate their character, you'll have no objection from me!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

the rules are only suggestions, and nothing suggests that I can't use skills to cover all the senses that we can't even all name...
And no I don't care how good of a DM you are, no matter how great your description is you will never relay all the information the character would have in game.

Right. But the goal as DM isn’t to relay all possible information. It is to provide sufficient (and, please, somewhat brief) detail so the players can be reasonably specific in what they’d like their characters to attempt next.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Right. But the goal as DM isn’t to relay all possible information. It is to provide sufficient (and, please, somewhat brief) detail so the players can be reasonably specific in what they’d like their characters to attempt next.

right and I think using skills and feelings are ways for me to showing and giving that info me and iserith have gone around about it before.

 

[Maxperson]

the rules are only suggestions, and nothing suggests that I can't use skills to cover all the senses that we can't even all name...

Correct. Nothing suggests that you can't do it. Everything suggests that it isn't intended, though. Not that that should deter you. I go against what rules intend all the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

Correct. Nothing suggests that you can't do it. Everything suggests that it isn't intended, though. Not that that should deter you. I go against what rules intend all the time.

Yeah, this bears repeating: there’s absolutely nothing wrong with going outside what the rules lay out.

 

[Lanefan]

Having read just the OP and a few posts further, my first reaction is that if you don't want game-mechanical social skills to work when PCs (or NPCs) use them against PCs (which is fine) then they shouldn't "work" against NPCs either: the DM should be able to react as the NPC wold to attempted persuation just like a player does as a PC, because the NPC is in that moment the DM's character.

As this would make mechanical social skills redundant they can then be scrapped altogether, and the game would be better for it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Having read just the OP and a few posts further, my first reaction is that if you don't want game-mechanical social skills to work when PCs (or NPCs) use them against PCs (which is fine) then they shouldn't "work" against NPCs either: the DM should be able to react as the NPC wold to attempted persuation just like a player does as a PC, because the NPC is in that moment the DM's character.

I mean, if the outcome of the PC’s social action is not uncertain, the DM can do just that.

As this would make mechanical social skills redundant they can then be scrapped altogether, and the game would be better for it.

I disagree it would make social skills redundant, as there may be social actions the PCs take that have uncertain outcomes - for example, if the DM determines that there are multiple ways the NPC might respond, then an ability check is an appropriate way to resolve that uncertainty.