D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

the PC can state the goal (and in most circumstances, even sociol ones) if they are paying attention and know the table they can make some pretty good educated choices on what they can and can not accomplish. However they do NOT ever get to tell the DM what the result is. They get to try the action, make a check if one is needed, then the DM narrates the result.

Of course - the player describes the approach and goal of the PC. The DM then determines if that is something that can just happen (auto-success), something that is impossible (auto-failure), or if there is some uncertainty and a meaningful consequence for failure. In the latter case, the DM can let the player know the DC and the stakes (what success or failure looks like) before the roll. Note that the success state may or may not be exactly what the player wishes to accomplish, but it should be related, I would say.

 

[Charlaquin]

You've looked at the shove from the point of view that it has already happened while trying to argue the threat from the point of view that you can just decide it doesn't happen.

You (assuming you are a player) can’t decide the threat doesn’t happen. But you can decide how your character responds to it.

I don't think it follows that we, as people, just get to always decide if we're threatened or not, and I don't think it follows that PCs do as well. There's are many effects in the game that impose the Frightened conditions, for instance, and many of those involve a threat of some kind (violence, overwhelming dread, etc). So, even in the game we're okay with our PCs being successfully threatened, at least in some cases. If we look, then, at both of these cases from the fact that there's a test of some kind to determine if the shove/threat is successful, then in both cases the player is constrained by this success in future action declarations. They are constrained from moving freely while prone, for instance, and, in the case of the actual Frightened condition, constrained in what they can do. Sure, a frightened character can think that their brave all they want, but they can't approach the source of their fear and have disadvantage while they can see that source. We we're going to say that this is not an indication of the PC's feelings, I feel we're badly unmoored from any form of inhabiting the shared fiction like the rest of the Roleplaying section says we should be.

Yes, these are specific exceptions to the general rule.

So, if we're okay with the same structure of test to impose effect that limits future action declarations in the case of a fear effect and a shove, then we're on very unstable ground to build a foundation that any other kind of threat is something that cannot impose any limitations. We need to move outside this argument to find a reason that a threat without a frightened condition rider is just up to the PC to decide. We cannot stand on these things (a shove and a threat) being so different that one is obviously a constraint while the other cannot be.

I think I see where the disconnect here is. Shove, Charm Person, Cause Fear, Menacing Attack. All of these things are specific game actions that the player can take to cause a specific effect. In my reading, ability checks are not game actions the players can choose to take, and they do not have specific game effects. They are simply a tool the DM can employ to help them determine what happens as a result of an action with an uncertain outcome.

 

[Charlaquin]

Without one of the optional plugins, the only two outcomes of an ability check are that you succeed at the check or you fail at the check. They are binary. Whether or not this resolves a scene or obstacle isn't being claimed. If I know I have five climb checks to get up the Cliffs of Ill Mental Health and I roll the first one, the result is success or failure on that check but a success won't find me at the top of the Cliffs. It is still a binary outcome.

Generally, yes, though there is also support in the rules for multiple success/failure thresholds. An example of this would be drow poison, which causes the poisoned condition on a failed save, and also causes the unconscious condition if the save is failed by 5 or more.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Your posts often contain several points I take issue with. Separating them is an easier way to make sure I address them all. But, I’ll try to take your posts in bigger blocks if you prefer.

I'm putting together coherent and thematic paragraphs. You're breaking these down line by line. That's not necessary to engage the points I'm making -- it's a rhetorical trick to break things down and scramble the results. This is clear in that you're not actually advancing a counter position throughout, but rather trying to dismiss or discredit specific sentences and force conversation into my defense of those individual points of attack. This muddies everything and allows for some rhetorical judo. I should know, I've done it myself before. I had thought that this discussion was better prior to the engagement of Fisking because we were actually trading positions rather than engaged in the rhetoric.

You’re misrepresenting my argument here. My argument is:

Assumption: All text is rules unless specifically called out otherwise.
Assertion: According to the text, the DM determines the outcomes of actions, calling for an ability check to be made if necessary to resolve uncertainty in the outcome.
Assertion: The text stating that players decide what their characters do makes the outcome of any action taken with the goal of forcing the character to decide to do something certain, unless the rules governing that action contain a specific exception to that general rule.
Conclusion: The rules do not support the DM in calling for an ability check to resolve an action taken with the goal of forcing the character to decide to do something.

There have basically been two ways people have tried to counter this argument: one is to say that the rules for ability checks in the player’s handbook constitute a specific exception to the general rule that players decide what their characters do. This argument is not compelling to me, because I do not see anywhere in that text that the general rule is directly contradicted. From my reading, that text is addressed to the player and serves to inform them of when they might be called upon by the DM to make an ability check. The other is to try to argue that the text saying players decide what their characters do is not rules text. That is certainly possible; if my assumption is incorrect, then my conclusion is not necessarily sound. My counter to that is, if not all text in the rule books is rules text, and the rule books don’t tell us what text is rules text and what text isn’t, then we have no means by which to establish what the actual rules are. And maybe that is the case, but I favor an interpretation that gives a clear foundation from which to understand the rules.

I find it a little strange that you criticize my argument for taking yours point by point instead of holistically, and then argue for an interpretation of the rules that takes them point by point instead of holistically.

In my reading, PCs and NPCs do not “use” ability checks. The DM makes ability checks to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of actions, or calls on the players to do so. In this way, there is parity between how the players and the DM employ ability checks. When a PC takes an action with an uncertain outcome, the DM calls on that PC’s player to make an ability check. When an NPC takes an action with an uncertain outcome, the DM makes an ability check. When a character - be they PC or NPC - attempts to force a PC to make a decision, the outcome of that action is not uncertain, unless the rules governing that action contain a specific exception to the rule in question. Therefore, there is not support in the rules for the DM to make or call for an ability check to resolve such an action.

It’s not a particularly binding constraint. The DM can decide to call for an ability check in that situation, just as they can decide not to call for an attack roll when one character tries to harm another. But, I don’t believe the rules support the DM in either ruling.

I believe there are many places that the stated intent of the rules clearly contradict the idea that the language in the rules is natural. It is intact quite technical despite a conversational tone. At any rate, I don’t agree that this interpretation leads to contradictions. Maybe you could point one out.

I don’t make such a claim. There was one person who’s counter arguments against my position were not epistemologically sound. I have stopped engaging with that person. I acknowledge that my argument relies on an assumption. I think it’s a good assumption and I have not been given reason to believe it doesn’t hold up.

That’s not my conclusion. We agree on how best to run the game, but apparently not on why.

Again, I don’t claim it’s the bestest logical reasoning. I think it’s well reasoned, and so far arguments against it have not been very compelling.

Ok, see this is a pretty compelling counterpoint. Here’s my rebuttal to it:

The PHB says, “Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone’s next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.” So, an example of an action a player might take that the rules would support the DM in calling for a Wisdom (Insight) check to resolve would be one where the PC attempts to discern information about another character’s emotional state by observing their body language. I would argue that the goal is not to determine what the PC thinks, but what they notice. It is comparable to a check to find hidden details of the environment or to recall lore; the uncertainty is in what information the character gleans, not what they think about it. I do actually have a preference for giving this information in terms of what the character can directly observe rather than feeding the player specific conclusions based on that information, but I do think the rules support a more “you can tell he’s nervous based on the way his eyes dart around” type of answer.

I still think you’re getting the wrong impression of what my argument actually is.

I didn't actual misrepresent your argument. My prior construction goes to the heart of the issue while yours above is framed towards a different goal of explanation. You're trying to make the argument that the GM cannot frame as uncertain what a player will decide to do and this has never been a point of contention from me. Never. So if that's you're argument, it's moot. It is, however, exceedingly clear that the GM can either directly impose or use check results to impose all kinds of constraints on the PC decision space, e.g. if a monster knocks you prone you cannot decide to walk to the other side of the room. So, nothing in your construction addresses or deals with this outside of the first assumption when paired with the Roleplaying Rule. And that's getting conflicted by the rules for ability checks.

Those very ability check rules are specifically called out for use by both monsters and PCs. The text of the rules explicitly states, and I'll quote, "[e]very task that a character or monster might attempt in the game is covered by one of the six abilities." Using your assumption about text and rules this states clearly that monsters can attempt tasks in the game and that such task are covered by the six abilities. CHA is one of those six abilities. A monster could undertake a task to convince a PC or intimidate them consistent with this statement. That would be resolved using the ability check rules. The outcome would be as binding on a PC as on a monster, which is to say not very much. It would appear the player has as much ability to ignore/thwart/sidestep the outcomes here as the GM would.

Finally, on the insight vs deception, your counterargument was specifically addressed in my initial argument and noted why it fails. Unless I'm using some kind of encoding where a description of a glance or bead of sweat in a location can be decoded by the player as a puzzle to solve the riddle of what the result is, describing things in terms of what the PC notices is either being intentionally vague and not providing clear information OR it's just obfuscating the fact that you are tell the player what their PC thinks. The latter is the most common result. To be clear, the three cases are:
1) provide a clear player side puzzle by using a known encoding of description of body language to meaning
2) provide an unclear player side puzzle by not using clear encoding, just description of body language which the player then has to figure out/guess the meaning of
3) provide clear information about the target's state of mind but avoid using words like "you think" but rather things like "they're sweating a lot and appear like they are not being honest."

3) here is just telling the player what the PC thinks while avoiding words. 1) and 2) are, for me, right out as things I don't want to engage in. If this is your answer, then we can have that discussion, but it's going to entail similar statements about honoring success that I just had with another poster.

 

[Maxperson]

It might be for a PC to use on another PC, is what I was saying, nothing here prevents it.

Right. Nobody here is arguing that nothing prevents it. The problem is that a lack of prevention doesn't equate to allowance. And even if it it did allow it, nothing anywhere in the social interaction section comes close to carving out an exception or contradiction to the general rule allowing the player to decide what his PC thinks or says. So even if you do allow it, the player is the one that gets to decide if the outcome is in doubt or if the attempt automatically succeeds/fails.

I gave that one as the example of where the effect is determined, but the PH rule about using a Charisma check is wider than changing attitudes, so what I'm saying is that there is only one type of case (changing attitude) where the effect is determined by the rules, in all other cases there is no specific effect described (even the tables in the DMG are only examples).

The PHB involves any possible use of charisma on an NPC. Those wider checks use the rules, "Only roll if the outcome is in doubt," "Only roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure," and "The more difficult the task, the higher its DC." The effects of the check are open to DM interpretation based on the circumstances at hand.

 

[clearstream]

Proficiency in Intimidate can allow a character to add their proficiency bonus to an ability check (typically a Charisma check) being made to pry information from a prisoner. Such a check might need to be made of the outcome of said action is uncertain.

Supposing the player established for me that they (speaking as character) were determined not to give up the information. And I, as DM, have established that this is the Queen's Own Supreme Torturer we are speaking of, who has brought a thousand traitors to confess their villainy, notwithstanding that each was equally determined not to spill. I'm going with - outcome uncertain

 

[iserith]

There seems to be a lot of obfuscation around this issue. It's really very simple in my view. It doesn't even require any excessive digging through the rules to arrive at the following:

Ability checks resolve the success or failure of an attempted action when the outcome of is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. The DM decides if it's uncertain and if there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If there is, then the DM sets a DC and calls for an ability check. For intimidation, we're answering the question, "Does the monster intimidate someone else?" (In context, it's getting the monster's target to do something it doesn't want to do.)

When it comes to PCs, the player determines what the character does, thinks, and says.

If an NPC or PC makes an attempt to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a PC, the DM has to assess - like any other action - whether there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. There is no uncertain outcome in this situation, however, since the player determines what the character does, thinks, and says. It's certain that the outcome is whatever the player says it is. No uncertainty, no ability check.

Some DMs in this thread are having the NPC or PC making an ability check anyway. They can't set a DC. With no DC, there is no meaningful consequence for failure because there's no way to determine failure from the DM's role. It goes back to the player deciding how to react. The roll, therefore, is answering the question "How intimidating is the monster?" Which is not a task - it's just something that informs the DM's description and/or acts as a stand-in for it. In short, it's not an ability check at all in the way the rules set forth. It's rolling for color or flavor.

Are there spells and class features that specifically say the player has to act a certain way? Yes. But that has nothing to do with how ability checks are resolved in situations where an NPC or PC attempts to deceive, intimidate, or persuade a PC.

 

[clearstream]

And even if it it did allow it, nothing anywhere in the social interaction section comes close to carving out an exception or contradiction to the general rule allowing the player to decide what his PC thinks or says. So even if you do allow it, the player is the one that gets to decide if the outcome is in doubt or if the attempt automatically succeeds/fails.

This conclusion contains its premise.

A counter-position is that ability checks (and skills in their relation) are game mechanics. Game mechanics constitute exceptions to the general rule - or I think more a principle - that players decide. The erroneous carve out is to say that some kinds of ability checks are not like other game mechanics.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You (assuming you are a player) can’t decide the threat doesn’t happen. But you can decide how your character responds to it.

Yes, these are specific exceptions to the general rule.

I think I see where the disconnect here is. Shove, Charm Person, Cause Fear, Menacing Attack. All of these things are specific game actions that the player can take to cause a specific effect. In my reading, ability checks are not game actions the players can choose to take, and they do not have specific game effects. They are simply a tool the DM can employ to help them determine what happens as a result of an action with an uncertain outcome.

I disagree with this last. You're confusing the player stating what their character does with a specific game action. If I declare my character tries to knock their opponent prone, this isn't engaging a specific action, it's a description of what I want my character to do. The GM then engages with that, decides if it's uncertain or not (and if not narrates outcome), and, if uncertain, looks for an appropriate mechanical solution -- usually an ability check. And, indeed, we have rules here that help the GM in this middle part by suggesting that knocking prone is something that is usually uncertain and that it should be a STR check opposed by STR or DEX, what proficiencies are relevant for each check, and then constrains the outcome space a tad more tightly than usual (although not much in the knock prone case). This is just an additional bit of increased resolution to the rule details, it's not a special category separate from ability checks. Same with the spells or class abilities -- the player is declaring an action and pointing to the mechanic they'd like to use, the GM still evaluates, and choose to use that mechanic. Those mechanics constrain the outcome space, but not the process.

The using of ability checks to resolve an action is still the same process, just with a different set of constraints on the outcome space for the GM. If you'd like to talk about why spells are so specific on these constraints while ability checks are not, that's an interesting discussion to have, but I don't think it's particularly pertinent to this discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

Supposing the player established for me that they (speaking as character) were determined not to give up the information. And I, as DM, have established that this is the Queen's Own Supreme Torturer we are speaking of, who has brought a thousand traitors to confess their villainy, notwithstanding that each was equally determined not to spill. I'm going with - outcome uncertain

In real life many people who were tortured, died without giving up information. Or lasted a very long time. That combined with the PCs being heroes means that the DM probably shouldn't take away the Players right to decide for his PC. Unless the player agrees to that anyway.