D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

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.

You have been offered two different "uses" for those stats:
1) For NPC vs. NPC use
2) To add descriptive flavor to the monster, using an existing shorthand rather than inventing a new one

You may choose to prefer your own interpretation, which is fine, but you can't logically fall back on the argument that there is only one interpretation and therefore your case is proven.

 

[iserith]

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"

The rules I quoted cover this situation from top to bottom. If there is something like an "absolute truth" in a game, it is what the rules actually say. That I base my own game on those rules, however, doesn't make my game "the truth." It's just how I choose to play. Just like how you choose to play by ignoring some of those rules. Both are perfectly fine because the rules even say that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. But claim that the rules say something other than they actually say and you will find some objections.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

You can "feel" however you want, but @iserith has extensively, and repeatedly, offered documentation that clearly supports his position.

All you've got is the presence of Cha skills in some entries in the MM, which (unlike @iserith's quoted rules) are subject to broad interpretation.

Nobody is telling you the way you play is invalid or wrong or bad. Just that it's not the default way described by the rules.

And the rules aren't perfect. I hate rapiers and don't use them. But they are in the rules.

This is purely a (somewhat pedantic) argument about what's actually written in the books, not on proper gaming.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Could you provide it again please? I didn't see any example of a social skill being used against a PC.

 

[clearstream]

You can "feel" however you want, but @iserith has extensively, and repeatedly, offered documentation that clearly supports his position.

All you've got is the presence of Cha skills in some entries in the MM, which (unlike @iserith's quoted rules) are subject to broad interpretation.

Nobody is telling you the way you play is invalid or wrong or bad. Just that it's not the default way described by the rules.

And the rules aren't perfect. I hate rapiers and don't use them. But they are in the rules.

This is purely a (somewhat pedantic) argument about what's actually written in the books, not on proper gaming.

Given creature attributes in the MM are typically used against PCs, I have sympathy with @HammerMan's point. One can take their presence as indicating a skill that they can use against PCs.

 

[HammerMan]

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."

okay, so in my eyes that is mostly fluff way of saying that i get to play my character. I don't see it anymore a smoking gun for 'never use social skills' then I do for 'never make attack rolls'

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.

no I actually don't think that it IS an exception. I personally belive that as I read it, it is all the same. I get to say how my character reacts to outside stimulie, the DM, the dice, and the rules all provide that outside stimuli.

It almost feels like some people think RPGs are solitaire with the DM standing in for a computer to play it on.

And, if the NPC is successful on a roll, then the player must play it out as if their PC is intimidated/persuaded/deceived.

They get to react, if they act out of character sooner or later the group may not like playing with them, but I don't see any rules on 'intimidated' for my NPCs when I DM or for my Character when I play. So I don't know where this MUST do X comes from.

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.

and this is again where we disagree... the dice (and rules and DM) provide the context for the player to determin what they think and do...

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?

what rule tells you when you DM and the player rolls a sociol skill how to RP react or Think as the NPC, or is that up to you?

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.

okay lets take 2 examples

1) me as a player. I tell the DM my Elf walks into the bar. She describes the bar, including a whole adventureing party. I go to buy a room and one thing leads to another and the dwarf NPC from that adventureing party picks a fight (verbal) with my elf. after RPing back and forth the Dwarf tried to intimdate my elf. I am not my elf, the dm is not the dwarf, we are playing those roles though. becuse this GAME has a stat call cha and a skill called inimadate the DM rolls and tells me she got a 4 (roll of 2+2 prof no cha mod). I now make an informed choice knowing that this was not very intimadating. (in some alternate world maybe she rolled a 19+2 for a 21, and I would know they were VERY intimadating) at no point did I loose or forgo agenecy here. I am still controling my elf. I still get to decide how he reacts.

2) me as a DM. two players want to buy a dog from a breeder. I as the DM know I have stats for a cool smart dog better then the MM/PHB that I have been sitting on for months. player 1 and NPC talk, I have him brag about how his dogs have both blink dog and dire wolf in them... player offers 2gp and I have NPC laugh and say "For a rare powerhouse like this, no that will be 10gp." Now the PCs decide they think they can push around the breeder. One aids the other and they say they are "intimadating the breeder into taking the 2gp" I as the DM tell the one with the higher skill to roll with advantage, and they get some huge number (it doesn't matter lets say a 27) now I have no rules in any book or even in my notes on how the breeder reacts. I have to decide quickly. SO I have him fall backwards afried, and the dogs all move up and growl... no rule no roll took away my againcy, and it is the same for the PCs

 

[iserith]

Given creature attributes in the MM are typically used against PCs, I have sympathy with @HammerMan's point. One can take their presence as indicating a skill that they can use against PCs.

You'd have a lot of (fruitless) work ahead of you squaring that with the other rules governing ability checks and players controlling their own characters.

 

[HammerMan]

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

hey look under at least one social skill it says when you X your DM may call for a roll... done.

 

[Maxperson]

hey look under at least one social skill it says when you X your DM may call for a roll... done.

Do you what "specifically" and "explicitly" mean? Serious question, because what you just provided as a specific example, isn't. Nothing there specifies or explicitly shows use on PCs.

 

[HammerMan]

The only what you can arrive at the rules supporting your method is by ignoring a lot of other rules.

incorrect, we have shown and discussed in good faith how we read them

I've shown the math, so to speak, on the rules that support my position and welcome you to do the same.

go back and look it even had page numbers. just remember that just becuse you do not like an interpretation doesn't mean it is wrong.

You have not done so without ignoring rules that apply.

go above here read my examples, I don't ignore anythign.

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.

and I don't care how you play but saying that an entire way of reading the rules is factually wrong is what is making me argue with you.

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.

and again, you can TRY but you can not remove your every experence (neither can I) we read things and put them into our own minds that have been formed by our own experences.