D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

so Okay that is how you read it... others read it different, we are both reading and applying the same rules, we just read them diffrently.

Can you be a bit more specific in how you interpret this rule in the context of your game?

"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."

Because it seems from my perspective that you find that there is an exception to this rule when an NPC uses Intimidation/Persuasion/Deception on a PC. And, if the NPC is successful on a roll, then the player must play it out as if their PC is intimidated/persuaded/deceived. Which doesn't sound at all like a player determining how their character "thinks, acts, and talks". It sounds like the dice determining it for them.

I suppose, if a player concedes their roleplaying agency to the dice (when dice are rolled), and it was their choice to do so from the outset at Session 0 as part of the agreement for the campaign, then it somewhat cleaves to the rule. Do I have that right?

I'm asking honestly so that I might learn something from your playstyle. I don't believe you have actually explained your interpretation other than in this vague sense of "interpreting things differently". Hoping you can be more specific as that is kinda the reason I'm hanging around here - to see what I can learn that might be fun for our table, and also to share what works for our table with those who are open to it.

 

[Charlaquin]

it seems from my perspective that you find that there is an exception to this rule when an NPC uses Intimidation/Persuasion/Deception on a PC.

And this is before getting into the fact that “using Intimidation/Persuasion/Deception on [someone]” isn’t really how ability checks work in 5e.

 

[hawkeyefan]

and all of the argument comes down to this.

we all read the same rules, we interpreted them different.

Yeah, and that's absolutely by design. As much as I may criticize some of the design elements of D&D 5e, it's hard to argue with how brilliantly they didn't commit on a lot of the fundamentals of play precisely to appeal to a wider audience.

I don't think that the rules are as explicit as is being put forth by others in this thread, but I don't think anyone is accusing you or anyone else of "playing wrong". They just have a different interpretation.

 

[Maxperson]

is not an insult, not direct, no indirect.

What you said was both direct and insulting.

 

[Maxperson]

for you maybe... not for everyone

It's literally the rules. It has to be a SPECIFIC change.

except where there are.

Show one then. Show one example from the PHB or DMG of a social skill being used on a PC.

like the context where they assgin stats and skills to every creature in a book some of whitch have no need to be there if they have no use.

I showed you the use. It had nothing to do with PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

Double post

 

[HammerMan]

Right, but @iserith’s interpretation is supported with a lot of direct quotes that, taken together, are pretty unambiguous.

and i disagree with his interpretation

@iserith very specifically reads RPG rules on their own terms, setting aside assumptions based on other games.

it is physically impossible to truly be neutral and disconnect yourself from your lived experiences.

Yes it… is?

still no

So far I’be seen a few vague allusions to monsters having stats and the assumption that those stats are “most likely meant for use against PCs,” and one set of quotes from @Voadam that @iserith quite thoroughly demonstrated don’t contradict the general rules.

so evidence you don't like, and an argument with evidence you don't like... okay and?

He literally in the very post you quoted said feel free to play the game any way you wish. You acknowledged it with a “right back at you.” There is no one true wayism going on. You might want to consider why someone citing the rules in their explanation of why they run the game the way they do and disclaiming it with a “ feel free to run the game any way you wish” comes across to you as one true wayism.

except he keeps (and you) pretending his way of reading the rules is the only logical one ignoring everyone in this (and at least 2 other that I remember) threads over the years. He comes in says "Do what you want but the absolute truth is my way"

 

[iserith]

so Okay that is how you read it... others read it different, we are both reading and applying the same rules, we just read them diffrently.

just like YOU are influenced by every game YOU have ever played, and every book YOU have ever read...


objection point not in evidence.


right back at you


funny you are as guilty as anyone here. WE SHOWED YOU OUR SUPPORTED RULES... you don't like them, you interpret them diffrent, but you keep pretending yours is the right way


then stop pretending your way is the one true way

The only what you can arrive at the rules supporting your method is by ignoring a lot of other rules. I've shown the math, so to speak, on the rules that support my position and welcome you to do the same. You have not done so without ignoring rules that apply. Note that you don't need to - I don't particularly care how you choose to play. But suggestions that the rules support those methods will result in objections from me.

As well, I play each game as separate and distinct based on the rules that the game sets forth. I see no value in playing D&D 5e like it was D&D 3e, for example. It just causes problems in my experience. I work consciously to ensure that I am not conflating one game with another wherever possible.

 

[HammerMan]

That’s not how exceptions-based rules work. If there’s no explicit exception, the general rule applies. That’s the only way exceptions-based rules can function.

we showed an exception... you didn't like it and said it was explicit enough, it is for me. I have read these rules a dozen times and never once came up with your way of reading it

Citation needed.

see above

Indeed there would be no need to list them if they had no use. Since using them against NPCs is a use, this is not evidence that they must be usable against PCs.

and I do not feel, and you can not prove that is the correct way either.

 

[Bill Zebub]

so Okay that is how you read it... others read it different, we are both reading and applying the same rules, we just read them diffrently.

The difference is that @iserith's "interpretation" has two things going for it:
1) It is very explicitly described by specific rules regarding the play loop
2) It also happens to not contradict the (intentionally?) vague language describing how attributes are used

Your interpretation only has:
1) It is very explicitly described by specific rules regarding the play loop
2) It also happens to not contradict the (intentionally?) vague language describing how attributes are used

Do you understand the difference? One is the way the designers intended the game to be played. The other is one of many (infinite?) possible variations they wanted to make room for.