D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

I actually addressed this one earlier in the thread. The PCs haven’t given me enough information to resolve this action. They said they try to "[intimadate] the breeder into taking the 2gp,” which tells me their goal (to get the breeder to give them the dog for 2gp), and that they think proficiency in the intimidation skill will help them in achieving that goal. They have not said what their characters are doing to try and achieve that goal, to which they think the intimidation proficiency might apply. So my response would be something along the lines of “I’m hearing that you want to coerce him into giving you the dog for 2gp, and that you think your intimidation proficiency would be applicable. What are your characters doing to try and get him to do that?”

I let him know that if I don't get my 2gp price, I'm going to break his left pinky. Then if I still don't have my price, I'm going to break his right pinky. I also let him know that if he screams when either finger is broken, I'll cut out his tongue. Then I gesture to my comrade Gorak the barbarian to move to the man's right, and to my buddy Chomag the dwarven cleric to move to his left. As they do so I pull out my dagger and start cleaning a fingernail.

 

[Charlaquin]

funny, I don't think common sense or common language reading of up can be read as down...

Why not? You have not established any principles on which your “common sense” meaning is determined, so there is nothing to say one interpretation of what “up” means is more accurate than another.

only because you refuse to acknowledge that the rules are not written as a legal or scientific document, but a common language one.

No, I understand the rules are written in common language. Logic is still the system used to derive meaning from language, common or otherwise. Without logical principles there is nothing to build meaning upon, no reason anything should mean one thing and not another.

 

[HammerMan]

You said you House Rule this... how is it you set a DC for whether a PC is Persuaded/Intimidated/Deceived by an NPC?

Oh, I have my sliding scale start at 11 not 5. If something is easy enough but still might fail it is 11. I then go up in groups of 3.

so easy 11
kinda easy but kinda worried 14
moderate 17
kinda moderate to hard 20
hard 23
very hard 26
almost impossible 29.... and if you get 10 over (depending on the check) I will from time to time provide a bigger boost.

I also have my own rule about going over 30 litterally can become magical.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Oh, I have my sliding scale start at 11 not 5. If something is easy enough but still might fail it is 11. I then go up in groups of 3.

so easy 11
kinda easy but kinda worried 14
moderate 17
kinda moderate to hard 20
hard 23
very hard 26
almost impossible 29.... and if you get 10 over (depending on the check) I will from time to time provide a bigger boost.

I also have my own rule about going over 30 litterally can become magical.

I see you've tweaked the scale to suit your style.
But my question was: how do you set the actual DC for an NPC trying to socially influence a PC? That is, which number do you then choose from your table for the NPC to beat? Is it based on some characteristic of the PC? Something else?

 

[HammerMan]

Alright, so it seems like the heart of your question here is how to resolve the dwarf NPC picking a verbal fight with your character. It’s difficult for me to figure out how exactly I would execute this, because I don’t know the context of why this fight is happening in the first place - did you insult the dwarf somehow? Is this an encounter I’ve specifically set up as DM? I don’t know, there’s different ways I might handle this. But ok, let’s assume this is part of a planned encounter - maybe the dwarf is part of a local gang you’ve been causing trouble for. I would describe the dwarf’s action in terms of goal and approach. So, the dwarf wants to… What, get you to leave the tavern? Sure, let’s go with that. I’d tell you that the dwarf makes it clear that he and his friends want you to leave, and you can do it the easy way or the hard way. He puts his hand on the axe at his belt as he does so - not drawing it yet, but ready for if a fight starts. His companions follow suit. What do you do?

That’s a reasonable example of how an interaction like this might go down at my table. Note that I’m just following the basic pattern of play, describing the environment and then letting you describe what your character does in response.

and when I say "Okay, how intimadating is he?" how do you respond?

does the game really flow any better for any of that?

I actually addressed this one earlier in the thread. The PCs haven’t given me enough information to resolve this action. They said they try to "[intimadate] the breeder into taking the 2gp,” which tells me their goal (to get the breeder to give them the dog for 2gp), and that they think proficiency in the intimidation skill will help them in achieving that goal. They have not said what their characters are doing to try and achieve that goal, to which they think the intimidation proficiency might apply. So my response would be something along the lines of “I’m hearing that you want to coerce him into giving you the dog for 2gp, and that you think your intimidation proficiency would be applicable. What are your characters doing to try and get him to do that?”

yeah, okay I am sorry, I was worng we DO play VERY diffrent games.

because intimidatingly someone IS what they wanted to do.

 

[Charlaquin]

I let him know that if I don't get my 2gp price, I'm going to break his left pinky. Then if I still don't have my price, I'm going to break his right pinky. I also let him know that if he screams when either finger is broken, I'll cut out his tongue. Then I gesture to my comrade Gorak the barbarian to move to the man's right, and to my buddy Chomag the dwarven cleric to move to his left. As they do so I pull out my dagger and start cleaning a fingernail.

Perfect! Now that’s what I call an action declaration! So, since this question is about how to resolve checks, let’s assume this NPC is the kind of person who wouldn’t automatically be cowed by this (though in other situations success without a roll or even failure without a roll might be more appropriate - depends on the NPC’s personality). I would then ask you to make a DC X Charisma check (with X being his passive Wisdom save), to which intimidation would absolutely be applicable, with advantage since you’re working together. On a success, he’ll agree to give you the dog for 2gp. On a failure, he’ll try to run away, screaming for the guards.

 

[HammerMan]

Why not? You have not established any principles on which your “common sense” meaning is determined, so there is nothing to say one interpretation of what “up” means is more accurate than another.

the benefit of common is I don't have to establish meaning... it is common meaning.

No, I understand the rules are written in common language. Logic is still the system used to derive meaning from language, common or otherwise. Without logical principles there is nothing to build meaning upon, no reason anything should mean one thing and not another.

that is the craziest thing I have read yet. You think if I ignore your logical fallacies and your debate rules and scientfic rules, that I don't know what up or down means?

 

[HammerMan]

Perfect! Now that’s what I call an action declaration! So, since this question is about how to resolve checks, let’s assume this NPC is the kind of person who wouldn’t automatically be cowed by this (though in other situations success without a roll or even failure without a roll might be more appropriate - depends on the NPC’s personality). I would then ask you to make a DC X Charisma check (with X being his passive Wisdom save), to which intimidation would absolutely be applicable, with advantage since you’re working together. On a success, he’ll agree to give you the dog for 2gp. On a failure, he’ll try to run away, screaming for the guards.

and again both success and failed seem to be success in my mind.
If he isn't intimadated why would he "run screaming for the guards?"

 

[Charlaquin]

and when I say "Okay, how intimadating is he?" how do you respond?

“I told you what he does, it’s up to you how intimidating your character finds it.”

does the game really flow any better for any of that?

Yes, because my players are generally there to play D&D, not to win an argument on the internet, so when when I ask them they do, they generally describe an action.

yeah, okay I am sorry, I was worng we DO play VERY diffrent games.

because intimidatingly someone IS what they wanted to do.

But “intimidate him” doesn’t tell me what the characters actually do in the game world. Now, many DMs are fine with leaving such details abstract. And that’s fine. Me, I prefer players to describe a goal and an approach with reasonable specificity, both to aid everyone in visualizing the narrative action, and moreover, to aid me in determining whether the action would succeed, if it would fail, or if the outcome is uncertain and requires an ability check to resolve that uncertainty.

 

[Charlaquin]

the benefit of common is I don't have to establish meaning... it is common meaning.

that is the craziest thing I have read yet. You think if I ignore your logical fallacies and your debate rules and scientfic rules, that I don't know what up or down means?

Yep, this is pointless. Bye.