D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Ovinomancer]

I am not sure it's exactly the intent of the loop. The player describes the actions that his PC is doing, but he does not have to describe the intent. Actually, at our tables, we frown upon people describing the intent, as it takes time, and it should not be that obvious unless the PC, in character explain what his intent is. The main problem that we faced at some point in time was people trying to justify their actions that way to avoid criticism from others, which led to endless debates. By describing the actions only, we gained a lot of time and eliminated this fruitless discussions.

Failure to get intent means the GM assumes it. This leads to problems. If intent is so time consuming that you ban it from your tables, I'm not sure what that play even looks like. Can you describe what you've experienced with player's including intent? What must a player announce to search a door for traps if he cannot suggest that the PC's intent is to find any traps on the door?

 

[HammerMan]

Your second para here is really part of the larger problems I have with 5e play advice. The player's goal is clearly to intimidate the target into submission, but the GM is under no constraint to honor this even on a successful check result. Instead, the GM can freely cast about for a way to sidle out from the direct check or just largely ignore it and have the player's goal be thwarted while paying bare lip service to the check result. Mind you, I don't disagree that the rules allow for exactly what you say, I just do not like it and do not play that way and strongly advocate for a different approach -- one were the check results are actually honored, both on success and on failure.

i think this (in my experence) is a trust issue. I trust my DMs, and my players (I think) trust me. Part of that is not abuseing that trust, so this can't be an every check thing. Also again, if you know the creature and situatiuation... they are not 100% right 100% of the time, sometimes I (and other DMs) pull out the door that is BOTH locked, and Barred.

 

[clearstream]

Hence my question which is driving at the difference between the two... indeed there is no "equality" here as exceptions as you are indicating.

Menacing Attack imposes the Frightened condition (on a failed save)
A successful CHA(Intimidate) ability check has no such explicit rule

I've created an opening several times for someone to say that their concern is incomplete specification. I understand that concern to be distinct from a concern that these are "social" - treading on roleplaying - and therefore verboten. Would you agree?

Will you conclude that when a mechanic doesn't have a well enough defined outcome (by whatever bar you are using), it must be only for use by PCs? How do those connect? Why should completeness of specification tell us anything about limitations as to who may use it?

 

[Ovinomancer]

i think this (in my experence) is a trust issue. I trust my DMs, and my players (I think) trust me. Part of that is not abuseing that trust, so this can't be an every check thing. Also again, if you know the creature and situatiuation... they are not 100% right 100% of the time, sometimes I (and other DMs) pull out the door that is BOTH locked, and Barred.

It's not a trust issue. I don't really see how you can have a successful game of any stripe with trust issues. It's a conception issue -- who's directing play when? In yours, it's the GM's ideas of how things should go at all times. The players are in Mother May I mode, asking for concessions or suggesting ideas. This doesn't hinge on trust at all. It's a preference that if I've engaged the fiction and made a check that the result of that check is honored in play. This also requires trust. I find the immediate reach for "trust issues" any time the authority of the GM to do whatever they want to be simplistic and myopic. There are other reasons I can want my check results to matter.

As for the not 100% right, that's what failures are for, not successes. Again, my opinion on play.

 

[HammerMan]

It does, in that it establishes attitudes and what you can expect to get from NPCs with such attitudes and a pathway to improving attitudes using the normal play loop. That's new rules not present before this section. Most people even ignore this little structure and do whatever because they already know how to do social interactions and don't need any rules for them. However, a large amount of that ends up like @HammerMan's example of the screaming intimidated prisoner alerting all the nearby baddies. In other words, free reign for the GM to do whatever they wanted.

I don't understand the idea that any skill is mind control and forces a monster/npc to act a way

 

[Maxperson]

The text in the PHB is generally addressed to player characters or adventurers. However, it contains rules that reasonably must apply equally to NPCs.

Sure, but the ones that override general rules must by RAW be specific. The resting rules and overland travel rules are general rules. The social skills showing use against only NPCs are general rules. If you want to override those general rules, you need more than, "well it doesn't explicitly say no." You need an explicit yes for it to be specific beats general.

 

[clearstream]

Why are these exceptions but CHA ability checks are not? Honest question. I don't see anything that would indicate a specificity qualifier that would explain this choice. The general rule is still generally applicable -- most of the game will not feature such checks so it's still a valid rule.

I think we are agreeing, but please clarify if not. I am saying that all game mechanics - ability checks (even CHA ability checks) included - can override player authority over the beliefs and actions of their character. Perhaps we don't agree that there is a general rule that except where overrided by a game mechanic, players decide what their characters think and do.

Also, on the magic side, that has even more issues because most monster abilities that inflict emotional or mental states are not specifically called out as magical and so are not -- they function perfectly well inside anti-magic zones. Dragon fear, ghost fear, etc all work and are not magic.

That too, is my intended point. I wanted to adduce such examples into the argument.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it's more likely they would have them to use against PCs than against other NPCs. (How many GMs are going to make skill rolls between NPCS?).

Most of the ones I've played with. I say most because I haven't talked shop with all of them. All of them have had NPCs interact with one another, though.

In fact if only some monsters have them, and, as you say, monsters that logically would have these proficiencies don't, then it seems likely that the monsters were designed by different people who were making slightly different assumptions. And that quite likely the issue of skills being used against PCs was never really discussed at all - which again would suggest that the game takes no position on this at all.

These things need to be reviewed and approved. They don't just get designed by different people and dropped in without there being oversight.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't understand the idea that any skill is mind control and forces a monster/npc to act a way

Sure, this is valid, especially in the light of not letting social skills apply to PCs. I mean, you've just circled around to argue that they shouldn't have any affect on PCs either. It's interesting how positions shift across lines depending on what's being defended.

But, I have a hard time with the idea that "sit down and shut up" amount to mind control on a successful CHA(intimidate) check result. I mean, you do you, but I'm not following the gist of your argument here outside of "how dare you put constraints on what I want to do as a GM!" I'm of the opinion that check results should absolutely be a constraint on the GM's ability to narrate outcomes, especially if the GM is calling for, setting DCs for, and mediating the implementation of said checks. If the GM plans to ignore them, why bother asking for it? Just do what you want.

 

[Maxperson]

I think we are agreeing, but please clarify if not. I am saying that all game mechanics - ability checks (even CHA ability checks) included - can override player authority over the beliefs and actions of their character. Perhaps we don't agree that there is a general rule that except where overrided by a game mechanic, players decide what their characters think and do.


That too, is my intended point. I wanted to adduce such examples into the argument.

If there is a specific ability that uses some sort of charisma check to override player authority, similar to Menacing Strike, yes. The current social skill section doesn't have any specific exceptions or contradictions, nor does the social interaction section of the DMG. So those things cannot override.