D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

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?"

It depends on the style of play. Some don't do success/failure, but rather success/success with consequence.

 

[Mordhau]

I feel that threads like this really illustrate that 5e really shouldn't have had a direct skill system at all.

The designers should have stuck to their guns on at least some things, instead of folding to the player base on everything.

 

[Lanefan]

Page 179:
"Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk."

There is discretion and ambiguity here so a DM can justifiably make a ruling either way, they can justifiably treat PCs and NPCs the same or differently under these rules sections of the PH.

The bit I've bolded is an interesting proviso, in that in both reality and the game most uses of persuasion would probably be done in bad faith, attempting to get someone to do or say something they otherwise might not. (thirty years of sales training taught me this, if nothing else )

 

[Mordhau]

The bit I've bolded is an interesting proviso, in that in both reality and the game most uses of persuasion would probably be done in bad faith, attempting to get someone to do or say something they otherwise might not. (thirty years of sales training taught me this, if nothing else )

I think they're basically saying you use persuasion when telling the truth, deception when lying.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

No. What is being said is that if your arguments are not logically sound(and they aren't), that they need to be developed further, because they are inherently flawed. Note that just because an argument is not logically sound and is flawed, it doesn't mean that it is wrong. It just means you have to do more to your argument to make it valid.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sounds good except for one thing. If my PC walked into a pet store and the clerk wasn't intimidated by that, I'd be the one intimidated, because he's probably a retired Grand Master of Flowers or Archmage

Haha well, in that scenario he’s intimidated either way. It’s just a question of whether his response to being intimidated is to give you what you want, or to run away screaming for the guards.

 

[iserith]

The closest to an affirmative statement authorizing more than just roleplaying is probably from pages 185 and 186.

Page 185:

Social interactions have two primary aspects: roleplaying and ability checks.

Page 186:

In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.
Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC's attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC's reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM's discretion.

Actions taken during a social interaction are no different than any other action. It goes through the DM adjudication process: Is this outcome uncertain? Does it have a meaningful consequence for failure? If "Yes" to both, which ability check and/or skill or tool proficiency applies? What's the DC? What happens on success or failure?

But again, there is no uncertainty when it comes to attempts to influence PCs since the player gets to say what happens. So because that's a "No" to the first question in the process above, there can be no ability check or DC. That "other checks might be appropriate in certain situations" may also refer to something like an Intelligence (History) check to recall an important bit of knowledge that, in context, an NPC would consider convincing (or be fearful of or whatever). Demonstrations of strength or dexterity may also be useful in the right context for a social interaction challenge.

 

[Charlaquin]

It depends on the style of play. Some don't do success/failure, but rather success/success with consequence.

I use both. Depends on the context.

 

[Charlaquin]

No. What is being said is that if your arguments are not logically sound(and they aren't), that they need to be developed further, because they are inherently flawed. Note that just because an argument is not logically sound and is flawed, it doesn't mean that it is wrong. It just means you have to do more to your argument to make it valid.

This guy gets it.

 

[clearstream]

All very fine, but do all these work the same when used against PCs, either by an NPC or another PC? If yes, that's good for consistency but not so good for player agency. If no, then you've missed my point I think.

Yes the idea is to offer symmetry. Players retain complete agency so I am not following why you feel that is impinged on. What is put at stake are the factors that bear on the decision, rather than the decision itself.