D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

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

Ok, I see what you’re saying.

I don’t believe the rules mandate anything, because they explicitly say you can ignore them. However, there are some things they support, explicitly instructing you to do, and some things they do not support - you can still do them, but they require going outside of what the rules describe. For example, the rules don’t support players initiating ability checks. They don’t forbid it, you can play that way if you want. But there’s no support for it in the rules.

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.

Agreed, and those statements seem from my reading to be that the DM calls for them to be made when there is uncertainty in the outcome of an action.

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.

Would you mind citing such a rule? From what I recall, the rules surrounding ability checks are generally framed around their use by PCs.

Yet there's an argument that CHA checks are different.

Not at all. My argument is that CHA checks work just like all other ability checks - they are called for by the DM to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of an action. Since in my reading there is no uncertainty in the outcome of any action made to influence a PC’s decisions, it is entirely consistent with how other ability checks are used that Charisma checks not be called for to resolve such actions.

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.

It is indeed just as true for any other ability. In my reading, there is no support for ability checks (Charisma or otherwise) being used to resolve actions made to influence the decisions of PCs.

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.

I disagree. “The charmed creature treats [the caster] as a friendly acquaintance” is a direct contradiction of “the player decides how their character acts.”

It's only when we get to things like Dominate that it's clear. Or fear effects.

Those are also clear contradictions of the rules text in question, yes.

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.

Yes, since the rules tell you you can ignore them if you want, it is not against the rules to call for a Charisma (Intimidation) check to resolve an attempt to intimidate a PC. From the very beginning of this thread that there is no invalid way to play. I am not, and have never been, arguing that you can’t or shouldn’t rule that way if you want to. All I’m saying is that the rules don’t support doing so. They don’t tell you you should do that.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

There is a meaningful difference between those things. Falling down is something that happens to the character, regardless of their input. Being friendly to an NPC is something the character does, which requires their input. The former is a cause and effect relationship out of the character’s control, the latter requires an active extertion of the character’s will.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Would you mind citing such a rule? From what I recall, the rules surrounding ability checks are generally framed around their use by PCs.

How about Shove and Grapple?

The absence of any analogous Actions that key off of Cha skills is, to me, telling.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, I see what you’re saying.

I don’t believe the rules mandate anything, because they explicitly say you can ignore them. However, there are some things they support, explicitly instructing you to do, and some things they do not support - you can still do them, but they require going outside of what the rules describe. For example, the rules don’t support players initiating ability checks. They don’t forbid it, you can play that way if you want. But there’s no support for it in the rules.

Agreed, and those statements seem from my reading to be that the DM calls for them to be made when there is uncertainty in the outcome of an action.

Would you mind citing such a rule? From what I recall, the rules surrounding ability checks are generally framed around their use by PCs.

Not at all. My argument is that CHA checks work just like all other ability checks - they are called for by the DM to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of an action. Since in my reading there is no uncertainty in the outcome of any action made to influence a PC’s decisions, it is entirely consistent with how other ability checks are used that Charisma checks not be called for to resolve such actions.

It is indeed just as true for any other ability. In my reading, there is no support for ability checks (Charisma or otherwise) being used to resolve actions made to influence the decisions of PCs.

I disagree. “The charmed creature treats [the caster] as a friendly acquaintance” is a direct contradiction of “the player decides how their character acts.”

Those are also clear contradictions of the rules text in question, yes.

Yes, since the rules tell you you can ignore them if you want, it is not against the rules to call for a Charisma (Intimidation) check to resolve an attempt to intimidate a PC. From the very beginning of this thread that there is no invalid way to play. I am not, and have never been, arguing that you can’t or shouldn’t rule that way if you want to. All I’m saying is that the rules don’t support doing so. They don’t tell you you should do that.

The request for specific text for ability checks is moot -- if your argument is that they're framed for use by PCs, then you've abandoned the reasoning for monsters to have social proficiencies -- those ability checks are not available if ability checks are framed for use only by PCs. Further, this absolutely doesn't dispense with PC use on another PC.

The argument that there's no uncertainty is pulling forward that initial assumption to the middle of the argument. It has to hold here as well for this to be true. However, the problem is that it's the GM's estimation of what's uncertain, not the players. So, here we're now saying that the GM is being constrained in their authority by this rule and that's pulling it clearly in front of multiple statements that the GM determines uncertainty without carve out for the single mention in the roleplaying section. In other words, we're pulling a much more obscure reference (ie, I'm not going to look in the roleplaying section to find out how CHA checks works with regards to PCs if I don't recall or am learning the rules) to confront a rule oft stated in multiple places. This is pulling a single sentence from an unusual place (discussion how roleplaying works and describing what it is and not action adjudication) and giving it greater precedence over very clear rules text that doesn't carve anything out. But, if we go with this, it still doesn't override the GM's authority to determine what's uncertain. The GM can very well impose such a check and just end up in the same place as we previously discussed with the player still determining to do whatever they want. These rules have no teeth to start, and you're layering another toothless version of them but insisting this one has a nasty bite! It doesn't really follow.

And, again, your closing is that you're claiming a better argument for your side, but that there is no wrong argument. This is foundationally flawed logic. If no argument can be wrong, then there's little point to claiming a better argument. I also find this construction to be badly framed -- while I agree that one should play as one finds fun, and how you play doesn't seem to harm me in any way, if we're discussing the rules of the game then there are actually wrong ways to play with relation to those rules. You can change those rules, but then we're not strictly talking about the same game anymore. So, if you're making an argument based on the rules, then you are explicitly stating that, with regard to the rules, there are wrong ways to play even as you can allow for those ways to not be wrong for the people playing them. For example, if I ignore hitpoints and have everything die in the first hit, I am playing incorrectly according to the rules. If my table has fun doing this, I should keep at it -- it's not wrong for me to do so in relation to the fun I'm having at the table.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I just thought of a way that Cha skills could be symmetric, for use on PCs, that I would find....well, at least symmetric:

DM: "The Orc bares his teeth and snarls at you, while adopting a Hans und Frans bodybuilder pose."
Player: "Umm....could you state that as goal and approach?"
DM: "He's trying to intimidate you by looking fierce."
Player: "Ah, ok. I could see that working. I'm not sure. Gimme a Cha or Str (your choice) check, with Intimidation proficiency if he has it."
DM: "What's the DC?"
Player: "He's just an orc, so let's make it 18"
DM: "He rolls a 19"
Player: "Ok. I, uh, sheathe my sword, smile nervously and say, in Orcish, 'Is there an all-gender, all-race lineage bathroom around here?'"

File under "Goose and Gander"

 

[Ovinomancer]

How about Shove and Grapple?

The absence of any corresponding "ability" that keys off of Cha skills is, to me, telling.

Absence is a poor start to argument.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I just thought of a way that Cha skills could be symmetric, for use on PCs, that I would find....well, at least symmetric:

DM: "The Orc bares his teeth and snarls at you, while adopting a Hans und Frans bodybuilder pose."
Player: "Umm....could you state that as goal and approach?"
DM: "He's trying to intimidate you by looking fierce."
Player: "Ah, ok. I could see that working. I'm not sure. Gimme a Cha or Str (your choice) check, with Intimidation proficiency if he has it."
DM: "What's the DC?"
Player: "He's just an orc, so let's make it 18"
DM: "He rolls a 19"
Player: "Ok. I, uh, sheathe my sword, smile nervously and say, in Orcish, 'Is there an all-gender, all-race bathroom around here?'"

Sure, except all of these authorities are vested in the GM. He can both pose the problem and resolve it. This is, for people looking for Forge Waffle violations, a Czege Principle violation, and it seems to do exactly what that states.

"The Czege Principle is an idea in role-playing game theory that it isn't fun for a single player to control both a character's adversity and the resolution of that adversity."

 

[Bill Zebub]

Absence is a poor start to argument.

Not at all, depending on the argument.

"The absence of any replicable data contradicting quantum chromodynamics..." would be a pretty good start.

But if it pleases you I'll rephrase it:

"The presence of Shove and Grapple abilities is telling."

 

[clearstream]

I disagree. “The charmed creature treats [the caster] as a friendly acquaintance” is a direct contradiction of “the player decides how their character acts.”

It is only a contradiction if you place some fictional elements in a special category. You choose not to put a change of in-world position in that category, even though it is certainly one of the things a player could decide their character does or withholds from doing. And you choose to put involuntarily revealing a piece of information in that special category. Possibly you do that only in some cases, such as when it isn't dictated by a spell? I'm saying that nothing tells us that we must separate fictional elements that way.

Your argument rests on your already deciding that there is a special category. The "players decide" part is a red herring.

How about Shove and Grapple?

The absence of any corresponding "ability" that keys off of Cha skills is, to me, telling.

Do you mean in the way champion has Athletics and Intimidation? Intimidation is the corresponding ability. Perhaps an example might help.

1. DM The champion makes an Athletics check to move your character against your wishes by 5 feet. Rolls... it succeeds. In the imaginary game-world, your character is now there instead of here.
2. DM The champion makes an Intimidation check to force your character to disclose the truth about Jo's illness. Rolls... it succeeds. In the imaginary game-world, the champion now knows that Jo is mortally ill.
3. DM The champion casts a charm spell from that magic locket its granny gave it. Saving throw is rolled... the spell takes effect. In the imaginary game-world, your character now knows that the champion is a friendly-acquaintance.

Only if we come into this with the assumption that some facts about the emergent fiction have special status, does the "player decides" argument take hold. It amounts to saying, the player decides about these facts, but not about those other facts for... reasons. The reasons might be good ones, but that isn't the argument I see you and @Charlaquin making.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sure, except all of these authorities are vested in the GM. He can both pose the problem and resolve it. This is, for people looking for Forge Waffle violations, a Czege Principle violation, and it seems to do exactly what that states.

"The Czege Principle is an idea in role-playing game theory that it isn't fun for a single player to control both a character's adversity and the resolution of that adversity."

Right. Which is why I suggested the best thing it had going for it was symmetry.

But I'm also making a point, if a bit facetiously: when the player states a goal and approach that affects an NPCs state of mind, the DM can resolve uncertainty for the effect on the character they control by asking for a dice roll. If the DM wants to state an NPC's goal and approach that could affect a PCs state of mind, it's a bit cheeky (in my view) for the DM to also decide how to resolve that uncertainty.