D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

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.

I don't. go read my examples, I in no way take away control, and I have no issue with how ability checks work...

 

[iserith]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Trying is better that not trying in my view. And a lot of people do the latter when it comes to RPGs. That appears to be on display here with the ignoring of rules that is going on. To my knowledge, all you've cited is that monsters have skill proficiencies therefore they must be able to be "used" against PCs. In order to arrive at this conclusion, you must ignore rules on pages 174 and 185.

 

[Charlaquin]

and i disagree with his interpretation

Based on what?

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

True, but one can be aware of one’s biases and make an active effort to account for them.

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

It’s not evidence I don’t like, it’s not evidence at all. Like, epistemologically.

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"

It is the most epistemologically sound interpretation I’ve seen presented. If you have an alternative interpretation you think is more sound, by all means, present your evidence for it. But regardless, there’s nothing wrong with running the game differently.

we showed an exception... you didn't like it and said it was explicit enough, it is for me.

It isn’t explicit at all. It may be “enough for you,” in the sense that you consider it sufficient justification for your preferred ruling, and that’s totally fine. But it is objectively not an explicit exception to the general rule.

I have read these rules a dozen times and never once came up with your way of reading it

Ok?

see above

That isn’t a citation.

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

You don’t feel what? What can’t I prove is the correct way? All I said was that use against other monsters/NPCs is a use, therefore your argument that monsters/NPCs have social skills proves they must be for use against PCs is not valid. Like, as in it lacks validity, in an epistemological sense.

 

[HammerMan]

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

and I have read and still disagree... you do understand how that works right. two people argue they both FEEL they are right, they both provide there side...

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.

the whole game is open 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.

I disagree. I am not the only person who read the rules and came away from it with this view point.

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

as are cha checks

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

 

[iserith]

I don't. go read my examples, I in no way take away control, and I have no issue with how ability checks work...

You penalize XP for players who are "fearless."

You roll ability checks for monsters to inform your descriptions rather than to resolve tasks.

Your expectation is that players will play to whatever it is you're rolling.

These are things that are outside of the rules. Fine to do it, but please don't claim that the rules support this.

 

[Li Shenron]

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

Do you mean NPC vs PC, or PC vs PC?

If you mean the latter, to me it counts as PvP and I typically won't allow it.

If you mean NPC vs PC, I never force the PC into a specific behaviour but instead I change the narration:

• NPC successful Deception: "he is telling you the truth"
• NPC successful Persuasion: "what he says is a really good idea"
• NPC successful Intimidation: "he is stronger than you"

The player can still decide to disbelieve, disagree or fight, respectively.

But usually when someone gets passionate about the player's freedom of choice is because they assume that the NPC has rolled high but was in fact lying or pretending... which isn't necessarily even the more common case.

Keep disbelieving everyone and soon enough your PC looks like an idiot.

Intimidation is a special case: unfortunately most DMs feature almost exclusively beatable combat encounters, which means Intimidation is practically irrelevant if choosing to attack always results in victory. That ain't gonna happen in my games, I have plenty of deadly encounters that are best avoided, but also I am not afraid to tell my players if a foe is a huge risk to face in battle without serious preparations. So when an otherwise weak foe successfully Intimidates the PCs, all I have to do is tell them it's a deadly encounter. The rest is up to them.

 

[HammerMan]

you must ignore rules on pages 174 and 185.

I do not ignore either... go back and re read my examples...

 

[Maxperson]

I don't. go read my examples, I in no way take away control, and I have no issue with how ability checks work...

If you roll intimidation against my PC who would not be intimidated by a goblin and succeed, you have taken control of my character away from me.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

One can take it that way, sure, but because they can be used against other NPCs, the argument that their mere existence proves that they are meant to be used against PCs is not logically valid (in the literal sense; validity is a concept in the academic discipline of logic, which this argument lacks).

 

[iserith]

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

1. Your DM's call for an ability check here for the dwarf was not in accordance with the rules. She used an ability check to inform her description of the environment, not to resolve a task. Same as the orc trying to intimidate a PC from an earlier example upthread. There is no call for an ability check here.

2. This is more in line with how social interaction rules are supposed to work. I see no issue here with the PCs intimidating the dog breeder where the rules are concerned. However, your narration of the result of the adventurers' action seems to me to ignore the players' goal here of getting the dog at a better price. Perhaps that was simply left off of your example or that there was more to this social interaction before it was finally resolved. This example isn't really relevant to how social skills influence PCs though.