D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Sure it does. When the monster tries to intimidate the PC the outcome is uncertain until the player decides how her PC is going to react. Once the player has decided, the outcome is locked in; just the same as once the die is rolled, the outcome is locked in.

The difference isn't the certainty or uncertainty, nor is it the point at which one becomes the other. The difference lies only in how that final certain outcome is achieved: player decision or die roll.

You’re using the word “certain” in a different sense than we’ve been using it here. No, you don’t know how the character will react until the player describes it, but since the rules say the player decides what their character does and there is no explicit exception to this in the rules for social interactions, the dice are not needed to determine the outcome.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

I think the issue that might be underlying this is that if the situation was reversed - if it was the PC trying to convince the Dwarf to leave the tavern - that the PC would have a much easier time doing so because the player could resort to mechanics if the roleplay didn't go their way. The NPC Dwarf doesn't have mechanics to fall back on, which makes it setting-inconsistent.

 

[Lanefan]

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

The physical skills - athletics, etc. - are fine, and are often needed to abstract things we can't do at the table.

I can take or leave some knowledge skills but in general they perform a useful function.

The social skills were a mistake in 3e, a mistake that has been perpetuated since.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Why in the nine hells aren't these combined into being the same thing?

 

[Charlaquin]

I think the issue that might be underlying this is that if the situation was reversed - if it was the PC trying to convince the Dwarf to leave the tavern - that the PC would have a much easier time doing so because the player could resort to mechanics if the roleplay didn't go their way.

The ability check mechanic in 5e is not something the player has to fall back on if things don’t go their way. It’s a tool the DM calls for the use of to resolve the outcomes of actions when success and failure are both possible and the stakes are meaningful (which I tend to shorthand to “when their outcome is uncertain”).

The NPC Dwarf doesn't have mechanics to fall back on, which makes it setting-inconsistent.

Well, it makes it mechanically asymmetrical. But that’s nothing new, 5e is an asymmetrical game - as are most TTRPGs.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If an NPC could use social skill mechanics to force a PC to react a certain way, that hits player agency right in the hurty bits.

Yet a PC can use those same mechanics to force an NPC to react a certain way. To me this is wrong; it should work the same both ways, and the preservation of player agency means the solution is to abandon those mechanics entirely.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why in the nine hells aren't these combined into being the same thing?

Tradition, mostly. I think the justification is that a persuasive person isn’t necessarily also a good liar and vice versa. But down that path lies the madness that was search and spot, hide and move silently, climb, jump, and swim, freaking use rope, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t share your opinion that rules for PCs and rules for NPCs should be perfectly symmetrical, nor are they so in 5e.

Indeed. It's one of 5e's biggest failings.

That’s just silly. The rules don’t specifically tell you your PC can’t shoot laser beams out of their eyes, but they can’t unless they have a specific ability that allows them to do so.

The rules don't cover it, which means technically a PC can shoot frickin' laser beams out its eyes until the DM rules against it.

I know for certain that the character will react exactly as the player decides they do.

Of course. What you don't know is what that reaction will be, and that's what makes it uncertain.

I don’t have to know what that reaction will be to know that I don’t need to roll dice to determine the outcome.

Correct. Player decides is a different mechanic than die decides.

I think it's a poor use of the word "uncertain" in the rules is what's sticking me here.

 

[Charlaquin]

If an NPC could use social skill mechanics to force a PC to react a certain way, that hits player agency right in the hurty bits.

Yet a PC can use those same mechanics to force an NPC to react a certain way. To me this is wrong; it should work the same both ways, and the preservation of player agency means the solution is to abandon those mechanics entirely.

Ability checks aren’t something the player “uses” at their leisure, and players cannot “use social skill mechanics” to force an NPC to act however they want. At the core of D&D 5th edition is the basic pattern of play wherein the DM describes the environment, the players describe what their characters do, and the DM describes the results. If necessary, the DM may call for an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw to determine the results if they are uncertain what the results will be. So no, a player can’t force an NPC to do whatever they want, because it is always within the DM’s power to determine how the NPC reacts and describe the results without calling for a roll. And even if the DM is uncertain, they set the terms for what the results of success and failure on the check (or attack or save) are.

 

[Mordhau]

The physical skills - athletics, etc. - are fine, and are often needed to abstract things we can't do at the table.

I can take or leave some knowledge skills but in general they perform a useful function.

The social skills were a mistake in 3e, a mistake that has been perpetuated since.

They are but note that there is little difference between Athletics and being proficient in Strength, or Stealth/Acrobatics and being proficient in Dex.

A lot of this stuff could easily be handled by class (You add your prodificency bonus to these activities) or just by background without the the use of skills - and backgrounds could easily cover social skills as well. If you're a noble you get proficiency when dealing with nobles etc. They would also tell you what knowledge your character might have.

Why in the nine hells aren't these combined into being the same thing?

I think the reasoning is that by separating them you can have characters who are good at some things but not others. If you are going to pretend that social interaction is a pillar of the game then I guess you can't reduce it all to one skill. What happens of course is that characters with good Charisma just tend to pick them both up, and characters without a good charisma usually don't waste their time taking either.

Of course if they were combined it would actually be less of an investment for characters who don't have good charisma to get proficiency in social interactions, so it would be an incentive for more characters to involve themselves in social situations rather than the opposite (but this is a frequent design mistake).

It would make more sense to have them as different skills if they actually used different ability scores.