D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

That counter fails on its face. The Specific Beats general section says that the exceptions must be specific contradictions or exceptions. A game mechanic that has no such specificity fails that test right out of the gate.

The specific - Intimidation can be used to pry out information - beats the general of player decides.

Humans only have a ground speed as a general rule. Casting the fly spell carves out a specific exception, "The target(the human) gains a flying speed of 60 feet for the duration." Humans leave tracks as a general rule. Pass Without Trace carves out a specific exception/contradiction to that, "A creature that receives this bonus leaves behind no tracks or other traces of its passage."

That is the sort of exception that is required for you to override the general rule allowing the PCs to decide their thoughts and actions. See Menacing Strike for an example of that.

That is the sort of exception required for you to override the general rule. I need not experience that doubt.

 

[iserith]

This is where I disagree, there is uncertainty, namely whether the NPC will appear persuasive, intimidating to the PC, or whether his deception will be obvious or not. So an ability check is absolutely called for. After that, the PC can decide what he does with that information, but the information provided by the DM WILL depend on the result of the check, and in particular:

• He seems very convincing and truthful.
• He seemed unsure of himself and is uncomfortable, as if lying

That is rolling as a guide for description, not making an ability check to resolve a task.

 

[clearstream]

Specific beating general requires a specific contradiction which ability checks do not meet in this case. The key here is a lack of uncertainty negating the call for an ability check. It needn't go any further than that.

A DM can establish that there is uncertainty, right?

 

[Lyxen]

That is rolling as a guide for description, not making an ability check to resolve a task.

It's absolutely rolling for the action of the NPC trying to deceive the PC, which is significant and uncertain enough to warrant a roll (assuming that there are no magic bullets there of automatic success / failure and other twists).

 

[iserith]

A DM can establish that there is uncertainty, right?

The DM is the only person who can. Except there is no uncertainty when the player decides, as in the case of the character's thoughts or actions in the face of a monster attempting to deceive, intimidate, or persuade them. It's certain it's whatever the player says it is.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

A DM can establish that there is uncertainty, right?

Not when it comes to determining how a PC thinks, speaks, or acts. That is the player's role (again with specific exceptions for spells/abilities of NPCs/monsters).

 

[iserith]

It's absolutely rolling for the action of the NPC trying to deceive the PC, which is significant and uncertain enough to warrant a roll (assuming that there are no magic bullets there of automatic success / failure and other twists).

The task isn't uncertain. The task is "Intimidate the PC into doing X." Which neither the DM nor the mechanics can decide.

Roll for color all you want. It's not an ability check though.

 

[Maxperson]

The specific - Intimidation can be used to pry out information - beats the general of player decides.

Show me where it says that specifically. I can see lots of it working on NPCs and DMs calling for checks from players. I don't see a single instance where it specifically overrides the general rule for players deciding.

 

[Maxperson]

A DM can establish that there is uncertainty, right?

Not for PC thoughts and responses, no.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

This is actually an interesting case study, imo.

My go-to question is: how can we make this "real", rather than pretend? That is, similar to the idea of asking how do we actually make the player worry that this orc is a threat to their 10th level barbarian?

One way, which admittedly would be problematic for a bunch of reasons, would be to make clear to the player that this guy is actually going to cause their character permanent injury, resulting in reductions in attributes and maybe other penalties.

"Ok, reduce your Strength score by 1. Willing to talk now?"
"No!"
"Ok, another point off Charisma. How about now?"
"No!"
"Next step is going to be difficulty speaking, which means any spellcasting with verbal components will have a chance of failing. Keep going?"
"Umm.....will I be able to undo all this with magical healing?"
"Hard to know until you try."

I'm not actually advocating that approach, but if you want a realistic "Queen's Own Supreme Torturer" that's how you do it. That's immersion.

I have zero interest in playing a game in which the DM rolls dice and says, "Yeah, he is super scary." And I say, "Oooh....I'm terrified! Ok, I'll talk!"

I mean, in some sense I don't even have to respond. The DM could just narrate (while I eat Doritos), "Yup, he got a 23. So, you give up the information, and then what happens is...."