D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

Based on what?

my reading and interpreting of the same rules? the 2-3 other posters that agree with me, the hand full of times this quastion keeps poopin up

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

and I think I do.

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

so the rules on how to use social skills (with page numbers and qutoes) wasn't evidence?

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.

Okay, here is my basic thoughts, there are no rules for what happens when you make a skill check. there is no rule saying what happens to your monster/npc/pc when a social skill happens. IT is up to the DM/PC, and as such never interferes with the player agency. I also agree with "Sometimes you don't need to roll" if my NPC kobold is trying to threaten the 15th level barbarian I wont roll, it just isn't happening. Also if the 1st level wizard tries to intimadate the adult dragon...also no roll. when there is a question, when someone can be intimadated we have them roll, then the person in charge (DM for NPC Player for PC) decide how they react.

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.

why? what makes you get to decided what is and is not enough to count as following the rules?

Ok?

That isn’t a citation.

and this board isn't a peer review journal or college term paper.

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.

you are talking in circles. go back and read my examples and find anywhere that I go against the rules.

 

[HammerMan]

You penalize XP for players who are "fearless."

that is a house rule, and I called it out as such

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.

You are again not...fine let me go copy paste...

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

 

[Voadam]

It sounds like you could be making an argument for specific beating general.

Explicitly.

The general rule of roleplaying being players determining how the character acts and thinks and feels is a general rule.

Lots of specific powers and things in the game go differently such as charm person which says roleplay as charmed.

The question is are the social interaction rules a specific rule that can be read to similarly apply to say roleplay as if persuaded or entertained or whatever.

The rule there is that the specific rule must contradict the general rule for the specific rule to apply. I do not see any contradiction here and these rules work hand in glove: A DM can call for ability checks to resolve an attempt to influence someone (page 179). When that someone is a PC, the player decides how the character responds (page 185). If the player is deciding, there is no uncertainty in the adjudication and thus no roll (PHB 174).

That seems to be just begging the question of whether persuasion ability checks (179) are a rule that can contradict the general rule of of player decides (185).

To demonstrate let me add in more relevant information

"A DM can call for ability checks to resolve an attempt to influence someone (page 179). When that someone is a PC, the player decides how the character responds (page 185) unless a more specific rule applies. If the player is deciding, there is no uncertainty in the adjudication and thus no roll, if a check is a more specific rule for resolving an influence check then there is uncertainty and there can be a roll (PHB 174)."

Assuming ability checks are not an exception the logic chain is consistent and works with no roll and no RP direction to a player like a spell can.

Assuming ability checks can create an exception is also consistent with the logic chain and works with a possible roll and possible RP directions.

"A DM can call for ability checks to resolve an attempt to influence someone (page 179). When that someone is a PC, the player would normally decide how the character responds (page 185) however a more specific rule applies (an ability check being called to resolve the influence attempt). If the player is not deciding because of the more specific rules, there is no uncertainty in the adjudication and thus there can be a no roll (PHB 174)."

Neither demonstrates whether ability checks are an exception to the general roleplaying rule or not, just that both assumptions/interpretations are consistent with the way the rules work.

 

[Charlaquin]

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'

Right, so that is one valid way to interpret the passage in question. However, an interpretation which can treat this passage as a rule and still produce internally consistent results is (in the academic senses) more logically sound.

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.

Which makes sense if you don’t interpret the above as a rule. But, again, an interpretation that treats all the text in the rule book as rules is more logically sound than one which relies on the assumption that some of the text in the rule book is not rules.

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

Quite the opposite, in fact. The DM’s role requires subjective interpretation, which a computer is not (currently) capable of executing.

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.

I agree, which seems to me to be an argument in favor of the position that the outcome of an attempt to intimidate a PC is not uncertain.

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...

This seems to be an assumption on your part. From my reading of the text, the role of the dice is not to provide context for the players and DMs to decide what they think and do, but to resolve uncertainty in the outcomes of the actions the players describe.

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?

The how to play rules. To paraphrase: the basic pattern of play is that the DM describes the environment, the players say what they want to do, and the DM describes the result, calling for a dice roll if necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the action.

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.

Great. You are more than welcome to play that way if you want to.

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

Again, great, play that way if you want. Personally, I don’t consider “I intimidate the breeder into taking the 2gp” sufficient to determine the outcome of that action. I gather that the player’s goal is to get the breeder to accept the 2gp, and that they think their proficiency in the intimidate skill will help them achieve that goal, but not what the character is doing to try and achieve that goal, that they think the intimidate skill would be applicable to.

 

[HammerMan]

Neither demonstrates whether ability checks are an exception to the general roleplaying rule or not, just that both assumptions/interpretations are consistent with the way the rules work.

yeah, thats about it.

 

[Maxperson]

that is a house rule, and I called it out as such

You are again not...fine let me go copy paste...

In you first example you are incorrect. You are your elf and the DM is the dwarf. You guys are literally playing those roles. As such, you get to decide what you think of the intimidation attempt.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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'

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.

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.

I see. It appears you prefer prescriptive roleplaying that is determined by the dice during play. That could be one of the disconnects in the conversation.

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...

In our game, the dice most certainly do not tell a character what they think or how they act or speak. They sometimes describe how well they've accomplished a task they were attempting. Put another way, the dice sometimes determine the outcomes of behaviors, not the behaviors themselves.

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?

So, it is becoming clear you want NPCs and PCs to behave similarly via the mechanics. You still haven't concretely shown how the rules support this claim. Which is kinda what this conversation is about.

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.

Ok, understood. That's one way to play - to let the dice narrate how intimidating an NPC is during gameplay - a way not supported in the rules but if you are having fun with it, there's nothing wrong with it. Another way to play is to let the player decide if their character is intimidated by the actions of the NPC. A way that is supported by the rules. And if it is fun, there's nothing wrong with it.

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

This might be the first time I've ever seen someone invoke the concept of DM Agency. The DM controls the whole world and has infinite dragons. I don't think many people are worried that the DM's Agency is in peril from anyone's interpretation of the rules. It's a false equivalence you are making.
In other words, I don't think many DMs would be upset by a player rolling high on an intimidation check and besting an enemy (DMs are, after all, supposed to be fans of the PCs who are the protagonists of the story). I don't think you can make the same claim about players though. In fact, I'll say the opposite is true: many players - without explicit buy-in for this playstyle at session 0 - would be upset by the DM rolling a high intimidation check for an NPC and expecting the PC to behave accordingly.

 

[Maxperson]

The question is are the social interaction rules a specific rule that can be read to similarly apply to say roleplay as if persuaded or entertained or whatever.

You would need an explicit contradiction to establish that.

For example, the general rule is that you cannot simply go through a wall. The Passwall spell, though, specifically beats that general rule by explicitly allowing the caster to go through through the wall.

No social skill has such an exception, so are not examples of rules that specifically beat the general rule.

 

[HammerMan]

Right, so that is one valid way to interpret the passage in question. However, an interpretation which can treat this passage as a rule and still produce internally consistent results is (in the academic senses) more logically sound.

I quastion if 'logic' and common sense, and common wording are at all compatible.

Which makes sense if you don’t interpret the above as a rule.

or if you do, again, I don't see where anything I do controadcits here...

But, again, an interpretation that treats all the text in the rule book as rules is more logically sound than one which relies on the assumption that some of the text in the rule book is not rules.

except we have been told to read them with common understanding not an eye for legalize.

Quite the opposite, in fact. The DM’s role requires subjective interpretation, which a computer is not (currently) capable of executing.

and yet when we both subjective interpretant the rule different you think mine is wrong...

I agree, which seems to me to be an argument in favor of the position that the outcome of an attempt to intimidate a PC is not uncertain.

not always is it certain, the player needs the information (just like the DM does for NPCs)

This seems to be an assumption on your part. From my reading of the text, the role of the dice is not to provide context for the players and DMs to decide what they think and do, but to resolve uncertainty in the outcomes of the actions the players describe.

okay, then what happens in YOUR game when a player tries to intimadate someone? do you not need to put yourself in the shoes of the NPC/monster and how they react? is not that reaction based on how well the player rolls (unless you decided a roll was not needed)?

The how to play rules. To paraphrase: the basic pattern of play is that the DM describes the environment, the players say what they want to do, and the DM describes the result, calling for a dice roll if necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the action.

and that is exactly what we do

Great. You are more than welcome to play that way if you want to.

Again, great, play that way if you want. Personally, I don’t consider “I intimidate the breeder into taking the 2gp” sufficient to determine the outcome of that action. I gather that the player’s goal is to get the breeder to accept the 2gp, and that they think their proficiency in the intimidate skill will help them achieve that goal, but not what the character is doing to try and achieve that goal, that they think the intimidate skill would be applicable to.

and so how do YOU handle those two scenerios (adding no addtional info other then YOU reacting so no adding player or DM stuff if you are not in the scenero the player of DM)

 

[HammerMan]

In you first example you are incorrect. You are your elf and the DM is the dwarf. You guys are literally playing those roles. As such, you get to decide what you think of the intimidation attempt.

what part are you disagreeing with?