D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

I think your disconnect here is because you are thinking of skills as something you "use". As in, "I make a Perception check." But "Perception" is not, in D&D 5e, an ability to be used.

And the character sheet is full of things the player doesn't get to "use". Armor class, hit points, ability score modifiers.

A player uses those all the time, and thus needs to know what they are. A player can also at will reduce his character's AC by doffing some arounr, dropping a shield, or standing still - foolish, yes, but fully within the player's control.

When the DM rolls an attack roll, they'll ask "What is your Armor Class?" and you read the number off the sheet. When the DM says, "Take off 5 hit points" you adjust the number. And when you declare a goal and approach, and the DM asks for a roll of Attribute (Skill), you find the number and add it to the d20.

When I declare an attack I can say "and I'm using my [insert once-per-fight combat ability here] on this one". When I declare a goal and approach I should similarly be able to say "and I'm using my [insert appropriate skill here] on this one", even if it's in fact the wrong skill for the job!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Seeing as it is the equivalence that is the bone of contention, claiming false equivalence seems to beg the question: it rests on your assumption that your position is the right one.

I'll add that in your initial equivalence you used the word 'try' in one case, but not the other. I.e., the monster attacks me, but he tries to intimidate me. Which is telling, but you could also correct that and make your same point.

I'll actually break with @Charlaquin here, with whom I usually agree, and and say that I don't think it's a false equivalence. However, there is still a difference between the two: the game contains specific rules for the mechanical consequences of a successful attack (e.g. hit point loss, etc.), but there is:
a) No such thing as an "Intimidation action" (unlike, say, a Shove action, or a Hide action). The only rule that interacts with the Intimidation skill is the player action declaration -> DM adjudication loop.
b) No specific mechanical consequences are tied to a successful attribute roll using Charisma (Intimidation)

That is, a successful attack roll leads to the player "being hit", which they cannot unilaterally declare as not happening, which in turn causes hit point loss.

What does a successful "Intimidate" do? Results in the player being "Intimidated?" Sure, you could say that the player doesn't control whether or not the monster tried to intimidate them or attack them, and whether or not they successfully hit or intimidated them. But what does the latter mean? What mechanical implications does that carry? Are there further action declarations they may or may not make?

So therefore it's not "false" equivalence as much as...moot. There is no point to having a monster "roll Intimidation" unless you want to:
a) Use it as a roleplaying cue
b) Implement a house rule

 

[Lanefan]

A character's AC and hp usually are also something others invoke by attacking a PC, but it is useful to have them on your sheet and for a PC to manage the reference for it.

The players get to make decisions in character builds that impact ability checks for their characters. It would be fairly weird design to make character design choices then hide them from the players just because they don't actively invoke them.

In the case of social skills there ideally wouldn't be any character design choices other than what score to put into Charisma. Everything else is done via good-faith (one hopes!) roleplay by player(s) and-or DM.

Everything on the sheet could be offloaded to the DM to manage, having it on the PC side is useful.

Everything could, but that's overkill. My point is, however, that some of it should be.

 

[Ovinomancer]

What?? When did I say rules only apply when the GM wants them to?

One assumption allows us to know what text is rules and what text is not. The other assumption gives us no such clarity. I think it’s clear that the former is a more sound assumption about the intent of a rule book.

I’m not arguing the rules mandate this end state. That would be impossible, since the rules say to ignore them if you don’t like them. What I am arguing is that there is not support in the rules for NPCs “using sicial skills against” PCs.

Is there another reading of this I'm not seeing?

What I’m saying is that I do not see support in the rules for ability checks being used to resolve actions taken to try and influence the behavior of PCs.

The support would be a direct statement to this effect? We have statements as to how CHA checks are expected to operate. We have statements for how ability checks work. We have statements that show how ability checks operate on the PCs for other things, and in the same general way that CHA checks are described. Yet there's an argument that CHA checks are different. I get it, it's stepping on that narrow corridor of agency afforded to players, so it's a big deal, but there's nothing special or different about CHA ability checks that's different from other ability checks. So, the claim that there's no support for ability checks being used to resolve actions taken to try and influence the behavior of PCs is just as true for any other ability.

Instead, it's the foundational assumption -- that roleplaying is always on, and that roleplaying requires that no one other than the player determine anything about the thoughts, feelings, or actions of their character. And that this can only be voided by a direct statement to the contrary. Such statements are lacking -- agreed. But they're lacking for Charm Person as well as CHA(persuasion) in the same way -- nothing directly contradicts the roleplaying statement. It's only when we get to things like Dominate that it's clear. Or fear effects.

It's that initial assumption that you're touting that text is rules unless otherwise stated. However, this immediately runs into the buzzsaw of the fact that game explicitly tells you to ignore the rules if a situation warrants. So, thereby, it's entirely consistent with your assumption to have a CHA(persuasion) check influence a PC because I can, by the rules, ignore anything in the roleplaying section if it doesn't make sense to me as the GM for that action. Which is why I say that argument self-destructs.

 

[Mordhau]

I agree with this.

My point is that the players - and the game itself - should in turn leave the roleplaying of the NPCs in the hands of the DM. The presence of social skills on the player-side character sheets strongly fights against this, however, as if it's on the character sheet (and further, if players have invested resources into those skills) there's a quite reasonable expectation that those skills will be made meaningful somehow. The problem is, making those skills meaningful forces the DM - even if by her own choice - to give up her autonomy in how to roleplay her NPCs.

Get rid of player-side social skills and this conflict goes away.

A lot of modern games struggle to give up on using skill roles to determine things because they have given up on pure randomisation as well. Therefore skills double as this.

For example. The PCs want to bribe the guards at the gate. There are two factors that could influence this. One if the PCs are competent at offering a bribe in a way that is not too brazen or doesn't overly offend, and two whether the guards are actually of such a kind that they are bribable.

Of the two I think the latter factor is the most important, but in theory this is the part that is left entirely to the GM. In many cases, the skill roll becomes a defacto way to decide if the guards are bribable - which it theoretically shouldn't as that is not something that is dependent on character skill.

It is entirely possible for the GM to resolve the action by deciding that there's say a 70% chance the guards are bribable and let the dice decide. As to whether the bribe succeeds - the GM can just decide that yes it does unless the players are really silly about it.

Where I actually most want social skills is not for direct interactions but for abstractions. I don't want to role-play out the PC going to every tavern in the town to find or spread rumours, and it's good to have some way to determine how the NPCs feel about a character who they have been travelling with and interacting with off screen. From this perspective, 5e has the social skills in the wrong places. I'd want skills more like Socialise and Leadership, things that let the game zoom out from the minute level of interactions.

How I'd prefer to handle interactions is to just give the PCs each a proficient save DC based off their Charisma. Then they can just role-play direct interactions, and, if something is uncertain, (the character is telling a sketchty lie) I can just roll a save for the NPC.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A player uses those all the time, and thus needs to know what they are. A player can also at will reduce his character's AC by doffing some arounr, dropping a shield, or standing still - foolish, yes, but fully within the player's control.

Max hit points are not under your control. Either is your level. Or your Strength score or modifier. Etc. etc. etc.

When I declare an attack I can say "and I'm using my [insert once-per-fight combat ability here] on this one". When I declare a goal and approach I should similarly be able to say "and I'm using my [insert appropriate skill here] on this one", even if it's in fact the wrong skill for the job!

Oh, well, you are free to have that game design preference. But that is just your preference, not 'proper game design' in any objective sense.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, you’re equating an action that forces the player to make a certain decision for their character with an action that causes the character’s position to change without their input. Those things are not equivalent, whether we take the statement that the player decides what their character does as a rule or not.

How so? The play at the table is just authoring fiction. You're claiming that there's an actual difference between authoring a character falling down, which puts constraints on the player's ability to author future fictional actions, and authoring that the player is moved to be friendly by an NPC, which puts constraints on the player's ability to author future fictional actions. The details here are different, as in the exact nature of the authored event and the exact nature of the constraints, but there's no difference at a higher level -- an event takes place that constrains the player's ability to declare certain actions.

Again, it's that initial assumption that is driving this. It's doing quite a lot of work throughout.

And, again, I still agree with the end result you're arguing for, just not that this is a particularly good or convincing argument to get there.

 

[Lanefan]

We've been over this, though. The DM has enough on their plate without having to master the inner workings of every single NPC and monster. If they want to outsource a decision to the dice during a meaningful interaction, I hardly see that as a bad thing.

Yes and no.

Putting it to a die roll to help inform a decision is in and of itself not a bad thing. I do this all the time, but it's a hidden roll and I'm not bound by the results if a better idea presents itself.

Putting it to a visible-to-all player-side die roll, the results of which are binding, is a bad thing.

Keep in mind, in 5e the dice only come out (for most tables, I suppose I should say in this thread) when there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence to failure. Calling for a check in which a PC might best (or fail to best) an NPC in a social interaction to achieve a goal can be an exciting moment at the table. To (badly) paraphrase Mr Franklin: "Those who would give up fun mechanics, to purchase a little temporary autonomy, deserve neither." Or something like that. Sounded better in my head.

TL;DR: DM Agency is really a strange concept, IMO, but apparently not a uniquely held one.

I don't see DM Agency as a strange concept at all. It's Player Agency over one's character, expanded to include the DM at such times when the DM is roleplaying an NPC and is thus in this regard the same as any other player.

 

[Lanefan]

Max hit points are not under your control. Either is your level. Or your Strength score or modifier. Etc. etc. etc.

Max hit points are rules-determined, as is level; and while it's tradition that these things are player-side information it's not strictly necessary that they be so. A fairly common variant in days of old saw the DM tracking everyone's hit points and just narrating the characters' general state of health the same as is usually done with their foes.

My Strength score (and associated modifier) is determined by me via whatever method during char-gen.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Yes and no.

Putting it to a die roll to help inform a decision is in and of itself not a bad thing. I do this all the time, but it's a hidden roll and I'm not bound by the results if a better idea presents itself.

Putting it to a visible-to-all player-side die roll, the results of which are binding, is a bad thing.

I always roll in the open so, yeah, rolls are binding. I'm not afraid to have my NPCs come out on the losing side if I call for a roll. It's part of the game and it's never been a bad thing at our table. For those in the studio audience: Different games (Lanefan's 1e vs my 5e) and/or different strokes.

I don't see DM Agency as a strange concept at all. It's Player Agency over one's character, expanded to include the DM at such times when the DM is roleplaying an NPC and is thus in this regard the same as any other player.

There's a world of difference between an NPC and a PC. I addressed this upthread. The DM plays a multitude of NPCs and monsters while the players only play 1 PC at a time (and perhaps for an entire campaign).

Further, are player-side charm spells or hold-monster or other such spells that impact your "DM Agency" banned at your table?