D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

yes, I expect that if I describe a huge rain storm my players will RP being in a storm.
If I describe a icy chill in the air I do NOT expect my players to all of a sudden pretend they are in a sunny beach
if you describe with word or numbers an intimidating orc i do not expect them to treat it like a rat.

See, there's a big difference. You are expecting the players to roleplay a certain way. That is not at all what the rule on PHB 185 says. I mean, yes, the players are likely to roleplay how their PCs react to the environmental stimuli presented if they are immersed in the scene and find it fun. But I, as DM, have no right by the rules to expect any specific thing out of their roleplaying.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right, the player decides how the character thinks, acts, or talks. If an ability check is called for in a scene, the DM then adjudicates the outcome (which, notably, does not include then taking control of how the character thinks, acts, or talks). The DM can then start the play loop over where they describe the change to the environment and the player determines how their character thinks, acts, or talks in response to this change.

In fact, when I do get to play a character rather than DM, there is nothing that feels to me like nails on a chalkboard (we all remember chalkboards, right?) than the DM describing my characters reaction to something. Damage, forced movement, conditions, all that is fine. But once they start narrating my PC's internal reaction - how my PC is thinking, speaking, or acting in response to some stimuli - I've become a passive participant watching the DM's story unfold. IMO, of course.

I don't understand how this argument withstands the specific/general rule, though.

 

[iserith]

The DM saying that the NPC "seems trustworthy" is the DM misleading the players in my view. It sets up a situation where the DM is putting the thumb on the scale of how the PC should respond. So of course if the PC doesn't respond as if the NPC is trustworthy, there is some kind of disconnect. So, yeah, don't do that!

"There is nothing noticeable about the NPC's mannerisms or body language that suggest he is lying" after a failed Wisdom (Insight) check by the player is what I would prefer instead. Or, even better, a failed check may result in progress combined with a setback: "The NPC has a tell, scratching his nose whenever he strays from the truth. But now he's noticed you noticed that and puts his hands in his pockets." This way there's no disconnect between any low rolls by the player and the DM's description.

 

[HammerMan]

Charm is a bad example, as it doesn't force a PC to do anything. Even charmed, if the player decides his PC just wouldn't do what is asked, there's no roll due to no chance of failure.

That is what makes it the best example... it says you treat them as a close aquentence but what that means is still up to you

Suggestion is a good example of specific beats general.

"The target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it pursues the course of action you described to the best of its ability."

That is a direct contradiction to the rule allowing players to decide what their character thinks or does. Since it is a specific rule, it beats the general one.

Can you show me such a specific contradiction in the social skills or social interactions sections of the PHB and DMG?

go back the intimadation and persuasion skill have been copy pasted multi times...

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'll say it again: it's not that the DM can't use the rule on 174 to say, "The Orc successfully intimidated you. Consider yourself intimidated." It's just that the player has 100% authority in deciding how to interpret and act on that, which makes the Orc's dice roll an environmental cue, not a mechanical state change.

No contradiction. (And, in my view, a pointless rolling of dice. If the DM wants the orc to be intimidating, make him/her intimidating.)

This is a fair reading, but it then means that there's nothing that says when the PC intimidates an orc that the orc is in any way constrained, either. I find that this gets soupy and pointless quickly, arguing that nothing does anything, even while it's true. Ultimately, the way 5e is written, this is intentional so that every table is more free to select their preferred interpretation and still be within the system. Write a very loose system, and you get a very big tent.

 

[HammerMan]

See, there's a big difference. You are expecting the players to roleplay a certain way. That is not at all what the rule on PHB 185 says. I mean, yes, the players are likely to roleplay how their PCs react to the environmental stimuli presented if they are immersed in the scene and find it fun. But I, as DM, have no right by the rules to expect any specific thing out of their roleplaying.

wait, so if I were role playing in your game and said "I can just walk through walls" how do you handle that?
What if I say "no it isn't raining today"?
I can't wrap my mind around a role playing game where people DONT roleplay based on what is going on in game... please give me an example.

 

[HammerMan]

The DM saying that the NPC "seems trustworthy" is the DM misleading the players in my view. It sets up a situation where the DM is putting the thumb on the scale of how the PC should respond. So of course if the PC doesn't respond as if the NPC is trustworthy, there is some kind of disconnect. So, yeah, don't do that!

so how does someone who can not in real life tell how trust worthy someone is play someoone with a high insight in your games?
How does a moderately to low intelligent player play a high int character?

"There is nothing noticeable about the NPC's mannerisms or body language that suggest he is lying" after a failed Wisdom (Insight) check by the player is what I would prefer instead.

that is just a diffrent way of wording it, and since we have gone to Roll20, all the dice are on the view for anyone to see and we all agree on DCs, so that just seems like a waste of time...

Or, even better, a failed check may result in progress combined with a setback: "The NPC has a tell, scratching his nose whenever he strays from the truth. But now he's noticed you noticed that and puts his hands in his pockets." This way there's no disconnect between any low rolls by the player and the DM's description.

 

[Maxperson]

That is what makes it the best example... it says you treat them as a close aquentence but what that means is still up to you

But.................................it's not an exception or contradiction, so it fails the Specific Beats General taste test. I can't be an example of something that it fails to do.

go back the intimadation and persuasion skill have been copy pasted multi times...

But never as any sort of specific exception or contradiction.

 

[Charlaquin]

They don't alter the play loop or the GM's authorities in that loop, though. They just provide narrower focus -- they aren't different things. Saying "I take the shove action against the orc to knock it prone" isn't any different than any other action declaration in kind. It's not a special case of "declare actions" that the player is engaged with. It's just a place where the player has an expectation of how that action will be adjudicated, but even here the GM still has authority to decide to go other ways. Combat is not a special case of the loop, it's the same loop with options for finer resolution of actions and more codified options available to the GM for resolution choices. You can run a 5e combat entirely using ability checks (arguably you always do).

Sure, but the DM always has the authority to decide to resolve an action in other ways. The key difference here is support. The rules provide specific instructions (i.e. support) for how to resolve a shove attempt, or casting Charm Person, or whatever. They do not, as far as I can tell, contain such instructions for resolving an attempt to force a player’s character to make a certain decision. The DM has only the general rules for ability checks to fall back on, unless they want to resolve the action in a way the rules don’t support them in (which they have the authority to do and is perfectly valid). Said general rules for ability checks say that the DM calls for them to be made to resolve actions that have an uncertain outcome. However, since there is also a general rule/principle/whatever you want to call it stating that the player decides what their character does, and the general rules for using ability checks to resolve improvised actions don’t contain a specific exception to this rule/principle, the rules do not seem to support the DM in calling for an ability check to resolve such an action.

 

[iserith]

yes you got it ffor a second, no exception calls out it is... so when we see skill checks can intimidate or persuade, we see the same way you see the fly spell

it is literally the entire argument at this point

I disagree. I have read page after page of you saying how you came to that conclusion. I can understand how you came to it. I can also admit it is a valid reading of the text... it just isn't how EVERYONE reads the text... and since more people play and do NOT post we can't even find out what % see it either of our ways or some other way.

If the DC is 14, then yes a 24 is a success and 7 is a fail (my house rule of degrees aside)

by your reading. Plenty of us right here are telling you we read it diffrent... not we house rule it, that we read the book, and come to a different conclusion.

the task is to be intimidating.

okay so we set one... Player, DM, game designer, newbie, me, you, anyone we set a DC.

yes they are intimidating or they are not

read how each step I have dismantled this.

I get how you see it. It's just not supported by the rules. Fly sets forth an exception that ability checks do not. Players cannot set DCs. DMs cannot set DCs when there's no uncertainty as to the outcome of a task (and there is none since players decide how to respond to being intimidated, etc.).

You've dismantled nothing but your own argument that your approach is supported by the rules. They aren't. But that's okay, right? Play how you want.