D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

It's a far broader and powerful exception: the consequences of game mechanics overrule player decisions for their characters.

Disagree. The general game mechanics detail the outcome of player decisions. The general game mechanics (with a few specific condition-imposing NPC spell/ability exceptions) do not dictate player decisions. To paraphrase what I said upthread, players decide on the behaviors of their PCs, the DM - sometimes with dice - determines the outcomes of those behaviors.

 

[HammerMan]

This assumption of uncertainty is still just an assumption. It doesn't always hold true. Take a monster unable to be harmed by non-magical weapons being attacked by a character that know this and is still wielding a non-magical weapon and not taking any other steps to overcome the immunity. The GM doesn't need to resolve uncertainty, here -- the result is fixed because there's no chance of success for the goal of harming the monster.

oh man this reminds me of 2e... I used to always have caster villain's let the first PC hit them for "Ping, that's one off my stone skin"
if anyone wants to call me out for being a bad DM that was it...man people hated that...and i was told i had smug smile in college when I did it at a RP club.

 

[Charlaquin]

I tend to agree, however 5e is written in a general mess such that it's sometimes rather hard to disentangle whether or not something is a rule or a suggestion or just discussion.

True!

In the case of the blurb under Roleplaying, it's not very clear that this is a rule. For one, it certainly doesn't cover all kinds of roleplaying that are possible in RPGs, much less 5e. It's a decently general statement. Second, there's no place where roleplaying is called out as present or not present in any given situation -- ie, the game doesn't state when roleplaying is expected to be engaged. Clearly, I'm not roleplaying when I'm creating a character, yet this is still part of playing the game. So, we have that ambiguity. I don't disagree that in the topic at hand roleplaying is likely involved, but, and this is critical, if we're criticizing a logical argument we have to note that this is assumption, not fact. We are assuming roleplaying is controlling in some way here because it's not said otherwise. This is what's smuggled in via assumptions and prior experience with RPGs.

Right, so since it’s unclear whether it’s rules text or not, we have to make an assumption. And for my money “text in the rule book is rules text unless otherwise stated” is a more sound assumption than “text in the rule book is sometimes rules text and sometimes not, and the intent is for the reader to simply guess which is which.” Either way we’re making an assumption, I’m just in favor of the assumption that leaves less room for ambiguity.

The second statement counteracts the first, though. I can very easily decide that being a friendly acquaintance in this situation is violently and repeatedly ramming a blade through the caster while hurling vile obscenities about their ancestry. And frothing at the mouth as if in a rage. This is me deciding what friendly acquaintance is here. If the definition of a thing is left undefined in this way, then there's no teeth at all to this effect -- I can, quite literally, decide to do whatever I want.

Yes. You can do whatever you want. The charmed condition does prevent the charmed creature from attacking the caster, but short of that, nothing prescribes how the charmed creature may act towards the caster. If a creature is wont to verbally assault its friendly acquaintances, nothing prevents it from doing so to the caster.

Further, using Persuasion successfully has a listed effect in the PHB that is as binding as the Charm Person example.

Would you be kind enough to cite that listed effect for me? I’m away from book at the moment.

I think that there's some other smuggled assumptions in, primarily around the idea that "magic" is somehow special, that the spell has a clear effect while the ability check does not, but there's about equal weight of words and clarity of effect in both. The DMG social encounters rules also indicates that a successful Persuasion can improve the attitude of the PC -- something never assigned and so having about as much impact as the Charm Person spell.

By my reading, the rules in the PHB and DMG regarding the effects of a successful social action describe what happens when a PC interacts with an NPC, not vice versa.

Taken directly, there's no real evidence for either being more or less functional than the other. So, even if we assume Roleplaying is in effect, the difference between a successful CHA(persuasion) check and a failed save vs Charm Person are equally binding on the following play. Which is to say, not very much by the rules. It's the smuggled assumptions that tip the scale, and the impact of the social contract at the table. If a GM used NPC CHA checks on the players and then vetoed action declarations that didn't agree with the GM's idea of how the PC should react, this seems exactly like the result for a Charm Person spell. There's a good reason I do NOT allow NPC CHA checks against PCs (or PCs vs PCs) and very much shy away from use of Charm spells vs PCs in my play -- they step hard on the one place that 5e actually carves out agency for players. I dislike stepping on that, so I don't, and am explicit about it. I don't think the rules particularly support this, or particularly oppose it. It's just good play for me. Others can differ. The rules don't much stop them, either. The beauty of 5e is really in how they avoided making any real stands on how the game plays in large part, while hiding the strong stands they made in other areas.

I disagree with your assessment that the rules don’t support either interpretation over the other.

This isn't 100% correct. This is how the Middle Path defines asking for rolls. The other two options both allow for or allow for not calling for rolls in situations where the above is not true.

Yeah, true. “this is one of the drawbacks of the Roll With It method” would have been more accurate, but I think it would also have been less clear.

This assumption of uncertainty is still just an assumption. It doesn't always hold true. Take a monster unable to be harmed by non-magical weapons being attacked by a character that know this and is still wielding a non-magical weapon and not taking any other steps to overcome the immunity. The GM doesn't need to resolve uncertainty, here -- the result is fixed because there's no chance of success for the goal of harming the monster. Granted, this is an extreme example, but one crafted to show a clear case. A given GM can have any number of reasons why a given attack could auto-succeed or auto-fail.

Oh, absolutely. I don’t disagree with you about any of that.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

that isn't how that works in my game (and I don't think in any).... the 23 means they were persuasive but it is still up to the player how they react to the persuasive argument. Skills are not mind control.

What is the purpose of the ability check here if not to determine success or failure?
Is this a house rule? Or am I missing something in the DMG definition below...?

DMG p237: "An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt."

 

[Charlaquin]

The more natural reading given the framing of the Monster Manual overall, is that the skills are intended to be used on the player-characters. That's true even if the skills are also intended to be used on other monsters. The jarring reading is that certain skills - some not others - are intended only to be used on other monsters.

Only if you read ability (skill) checks as things that are “used” by characters “on” other characters to achieve goals. I do not. I read them as tools used by the DM to resolve uncertainty of actions. The skills in a monster’s stat block are meant to be used when the monster makes an ability check to which the skill applies. The DM calls for ability checks to be made when there is uncertainty in the outcome of an action. Since the outcome of an attempt to socially influence a PC is never uncertain in my reading, ability checks are never called for to resolve such actions.

Here you are arguing that incomplete specification of consequences shifts a mechanic into a different category. I raised the Charm spell as a case in point and I believe that hasn't yet been adequately answered.

I am not arguing that incomplete specification of consequences shifts a mechanic into a different category. I’m arguing that the ability check mechanic is not appropriate to employ when resolving an attempt to socially influence a PC.

 

[Ovinomancer]

True!

Right, so since it’s unclear whether it’s rules text or not, we have to make an assumption. And for my money “text in the rule book is rules text unless otherwise stated” is a more sound assumption than “text in the rule book is sometimes rules text and sometimes not, and the intent is for the reader to simply guess which is which.” Either way we’re making an assumption, I’m just in favor of the assumption that leaves less room for ambiguity.

Yes. You can do whatever you want. The charmed condition does prevent the charmed creature from attacking the caster, but short of that, nothing prescribes how the charmed creature may act towards the caster. If a creature is wont to verbally assault its friendly acquaintances, nothing prevents it from doing so to the caster.


Would you be kind enough to cite that listed effect for me? I’m away from book at the moment.

By my reading, the rules in the PHB and DMG regarding the effects of a successful social action describe what happens when a PC interacts with an NPC, not vice versa.

I disagree with your assessment that the rules don’t support either interpretation over the other.

Yeah, true. “this is one of the drawbacks of the Roll With It method” would have been more accurate, but I think it would also have been less clear.

Oh, absolutely. I don’t disagree with you about any of that.

Fundamentally, you've made an assumption to start. That assumption is the underpinning of your argument. Remove it, and the argument falls apart. Epistemologically speaking, this removes the strength of your argument against the counter-argument -- both are using an assumption as foundational, just at different points in the argument. Yours is at the start, and builds a solid argument from that foundation. The other comes in later in the argument structure, but is just as sound when built there. You're pointing out that assumption as a flaw while ignoring your own foundational assumption.

 

[HammerMan]

What is the purpose of the ability check here if not to determine success or failure?
Is this a house rule? Or am I missing something in the DMG definition below...?

DMG p237: "An ability check is a test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt."

no they succeed in being persuasive, they don't succeed in every way they want. I can't say "I climb the tree, and the tree is cut down" I can say I climb the tree, and that is what my athletics check is for "can I climb the tree" (yes most of the time you just climb no roll but I need an example)
I am trying to put forward something, the dm still gets to decide what happens.

PLayer "I use cha deception to tell the bartender there is a fight out front so he goes to look."
DM looks at the roll the DC(most likelt insight/wisdom) and the check says if the Bartender knows he is lying or not, but that doesn't le tthe player declair the action "so he goes outside"

 

[clearstream]

Disagree. The general game mechanics detail the outcome of player decisions. The general game mechanics (with a few specific condition-imposing NPC spell/ability exceptions) do not dictate player decisions. To paraphrase what I said upthread, players decide on the behaviors of their PCs, the DM - sometimes with dice - determines the outcomes of those behaviors.

That doesn't hold. The player does not decide that the monster shoves their character using its Athletics skill.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

no they succeed in being persuasive, they don't succeed in every way they want. I can't say "I climb the tree, and the tree is cut down" I can say I climb the tree, and that is what my athletics check is for "can I climb the tree" (yes most of the time you just climb no roll but I need an example)
I am trying to put forward something, the dm still gets to decide what happens.

PLayer "I use cha deception to tell the bartender there is a fight out front so he goes to look."
DM looks at the roll the DC(most likelt insight/wisdom) and the check says if the Bartender knows he is lying or not, but that doesn't le tthe player declair the action "so he goes outside"

The goal of the NPC was to persuade the PC to do "the thing". Right? The roll was 23. If the PC doesn't then do "the thing" because the player determines they don't want to, how can you say the NPC was persuasive?

 

[Lanefan]

You're twisting the meaning of "uncertain outcome" here.

I'm not twisting the meaning at all. It's the game that twists the meaning through unclear writing (and the 1e veteran shrugs and says "some things never change...").

It refers simply to the DM's adjudication, not quantum mechanics (or other unpredictable complex systems). Since the outcome is whatever the player decides, it's not uncertain.

The twist is that the game uses the words "uncertain outcome" to in fact mean "uncertainty only at point of resolution"; where I'm reading it as covering the whole declare (uncertain)-->resolve-->narrate (certain) cycle.

"When an action has an uncertain outcome..." - well, pretty much every worthwhile action has an uncertain outcome when it's declared, otherwise what's the point?! Far better and clearer terminology would be something like "When resolving an action, call for a roll only if the outcome a) is in doubt and b) cannot be determined another way..."