D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Baldurs_Underdark]

A social skill check against an NPC is meant to determine how the DM roleplays that NPC's response.

A social interaction focused on a PC does not require such a roll because the player of that PC can determine how to roleplay. A good lie or an inspiring plan may just work, but they may also see through it.

If there will be a roll, then it's because the PC chooses to roll, usually for fun. As a DM I never propose it.

 

[Lanefan]

A social skill check against an NPC is meant to determine how the DM roleplays that NPC's response.

A social interaction focused on a PC does not require such a roll because the player of that PC can determine how to roleplay. A good lie or an inspiring plan may just work, but they may also see through it.

In this case I see the DM and the player as being on the same footing. The DM is the player of that NPC and as such can determine how to roleplay it.

Nothing stops anyone from rolling to help determine the reactions of their own characters if undecided. But if social skill checks can force how NPCs react then IMO the same should apply to PCs; and as no-one wants the latter the solution is to remove the former.

 

[Lanefan]

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

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.

By RAW perhaps, but this is an area where I disagree with both the words and intent of the RAW. The DM should have the same degree of control over NPCs as the players do over their PCs and be able to determine their reactions in exactly the same way.

That said, if a DM or a player can't decide how a character they control will react then they can always randomize it with a self-roll if desired. But that's entirely at the whim of the "recipient", not at the whim of the person attempting to persuade or influence; and need not be binding if a better reaction presents itself.

What this means is that if your PC is trying to talk your way past my NPC gate guard the mechanics (or in this case, lack thereof) should work exactly the same as they would if my NPC gate guard was trying to talk its way past your PC.

 

[Horwath]

Intimidation should be looked as an attack vs PC. It might not be direct attack, but you are conveying message that you would do such a thing if your "suggestions" are not listened to. Treat is as any other PvP conflict.

Persuasion should not be used at all, maybe if party gets into the "paralysis of analysis" with 2 or more viable ideas how to resolve a problem. Then higher persuasion might get used to solve a deadlock.

Perform; who cares...

Deception; should be used as vs NPC. "lying" PC should roll Deception VS passive Insight. Believable/minor lies might get advantage on the check.
Other players could(should) go along with it and say that they believe each other on general basis and take a -5 to Passive Insight.

Players could also say that they generally do not believe their fellow PCs and might get +5 on passive insight bonus, but to me it's just bad manners and asking for PvP, without directly asking for it.

 

[loverdrive]

Intimidation should be looked as an attack vs PC. It might not be direct attack, but you are conveying message that you would do such a thing if your "suggestions" are not listened to. Treat is as any other PvP conflict.

In Venture City, a superhero supplement for Fate (which, overall, is very bad and feels like it was written by someone who barely has any idea how Fate works, but anyway), there's Influence superpower. Or maybe it called something else, I only have Russian translation.

Anyway, it works as a Rapport vs. Will attack. Then, the target can decide whether to take mental damage, or oblige. It works quite well.

 

[Horwath]

In Venture City, a superhero supplement for Fate (which, overall, is very bad and feels like it was written by someone who barely has any idea how Fate works, but anyway), there's Influence superpower. Or maybe it called something else, I only have Russian translation.

Anyway, it works as a Rapport vs. Will attack. Then, the target can decide whether to take mental damage, or oblige. It works quite well.

didn't play the system, but it looks like an attack of sorts. It would still fall into PvP category. So the players should agree if they want that stuff or not.

 

[clearstream]

Looks like a broken link, but ultimately for anything like what you suggest to work in D&D 5e, it would require changing the rules around the player being the sole person who can decide what the character does, says, and thinks (short of magical compulsion or the like).

Surely one of the things a player can be the sole person to decide, is to do what another creature wants them to do.

 

[clearstream]

This topic gets re-hashed a lot, it seems, and in general my stance is that social skills don't 'work' on other PCs.

But I was just reading some of the early materials for Stonetop, a kickstarted PoA game, and came across this:

View attachment 147502

I like that a lot. It leaves the target PC fully in control of the player, but also provides a framework for Cha skills to 'work' on other PCs.

I don't have an elegant way to map that to 5e rules, but thought I'd throw it out there as a middle ground between the two sides of the debate.

EDIT: Try again on the attachment....
View attachment 147505

Can it be used one PC to another? If so, I feel it suffers the technical flaw of being able to be used unreasonably an XP generator. One could say - don't use the rules unreasonably - but that is no excuse for badly written rules.

Therefore, is Parley solely NPC to PC?

 

[clearstream]

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.

One approach I have been considering is to think about it more in terms of control of information. The parties then decide how they will act on beliefs informed by said information. (So the roll doesn't force them to feel frightened, it delivers to them frightening information.)

• Example, for intimidation, a successful check means that the threat is presented as real. I won't tell the players that they think the orc is scary. I will tell them that so far as they can make out, this orc is an unusually powerful member of its polity and has backup very near by. Whether or not that is true, that is how it is presented.

One problem with this approach is that every social skill might then be seen as deception. That might be disambiguated by each skill having distinct requirements, results, and possible downsides. For example:

• Persuasion needs something they want. Persuaded creatures act freely and usually in good faith (they may have their own agenda). They seldom feel umbrage if the attempt fails.
• Intimidation needs something they fear. Intimidated creatures do exactly as you demand, while seeking opportunities to escape or undermine you.
• Deception needs false promises or threats. Tricked creatures behave according to your approach (i.e., persuaded, or intimidated). They are frequently hostile if they discover the truth.
• Performance needs props or devices, and is used to attract, distract, or imitate. If seen through, common reactions are repulsion or expulsion.

So to contrast persuading with intimidating, a successful check makes it clear that the orc will step away from the watch post if given 10gp or the bolt of colourful fabric they were hoping to procure for that price. It doesn't force the orc to step away, so it could be that the outcome of a successful check is to learn that there really isn't anything that could persuade this orc to shirk their duty.

 

[clearstream]

In Venture City, a superhero supplement for Fate (which, overall, is very bad and feels like it was written by someone who barely has any idea how Fate works, but anyway), there's Influence superpower. Or maybe it called something else, I only have Russian translation.

Anyway, it works as a Rapport vs. Will attack. Then, the target can decide whether to take mental damage, or oblige. It works quite well.

In Earthdawn, the Thoughtworm power gives the target a choice - do the thing requested and gain XP, or don't do the thing requested and take damage. Each refusal increases the stakes on both sides.

So Parlay and Influence in one, plus a forcing mechanic (increasing stakes.) It's tremendous in play.