D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

not evading.... we have been over it. You don't see it and refuse to give the benefit of the doubt that anyone reads the rules different then you do. I refuse to do the work of retyping or searching and copy pasteing again.

Nothing anyone has posted in those rules has been a CONTRADICTION. Even if you are correct and those skills can be used against PCs, NOTHING there contradicts the player's ability to make the decision himself using the general RP rules. Not one thing.

 

[iserith]

not everyone aggrees with you. so since it is how we read vs how you read how can either be right/wrong

man, would it hurt you to say that someone read the rules and INTERPRETED them other then how you did without breaking going around or some other house rule...
You keep ending arguments with "But your approach is not supported by the rules" when we have shown page after page of where we see those differently then you.

I don't care if not everyone agrees with me. Their agreement is not required for what I'm saying about the rules to be true. I don't have any preferred approach to running games. I try to do what the rules say to do because I think games tend to work better when I do that. If the rules said I should be rolling for color, then I would do that. But they don't, so I don't. That doesn't mean you're wrong for rolling for color.

You've shown where you're willing to ignore rules that don't support your approach. Which you can do at the table. Just not in a discussion about what the rules actually say. You will get objections when you do that.

 

[HammerMan]

I guess the question is, if you expected the player to say, "Brrr....I stay inside by the fire" and instead they said, "I love a good storm! I stand in the downpour and scream my defiance to the weather gods!" are you ok with that?

since both are in game and in the reality of the situatuion both are fine.

Likewise, if you roll a nat 20 on the Orc's intimidate and the player doesn't respond in the way you are expecting, are you ok with that?

I don't often have an expectation. infact the only thing I have ever said I dislike at all, and only then when done repeatedly, is ignoring stimuli. So yeah, I mean if I guess that the archmage being intimidating will make the PC take the 1,000gp pay out instead of the 10,000gp pay out he wants and the player decided that instead he is so intimidated he can't work for him at all... I would be okay with it.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is the same argument I addressed with @Bill Zebub -- the existence of one rule that codified some action does not imply anything about the intent to not allow a different action that doesn't have a more codified rule. There are very good reasons why a designer may choose to leave a type of action uncodified and open rather than provide codification for it and those don't involve wanting to minimize or restrict actions of that kind.

As for explicit exceptions, these don't exist all over the place but are assumed. Charm person doesn't call itself out any more explicitly than do the options for use of CHA ability checks. This is an argument where there's some level of explicitness that's present in one place but not another yet cannot be qualified in any real way.

Anything and everything the DM wants to do is allowed. This is not a question of what is allowed, but of what is supported.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why roll dice at all?

I think that's exactly the right question. There has to be a dividing line between what is determined by dice, and what is determined by choice/narration. And I prefer there to be an unambiguous line. The best one that I’ve found is, to paraphrase an old (apocryphal) story about Mean Joe Green, when asked why he bit off the finger of an opposing player who grabbed his mask, responded “Anything on the outside of the mask is his; anything on the inside of the mask is mine.”

In other words, thoughts and thus action declarations are the sole purview of the player, except where there are clear specific exceptions to the general rule.

Otherwise, how does it work? When does the player know it’s their choice, and not what others at the table think they should do?

 

[Maxperson]

since both are in game and in the reality of the situatuion both are fine.


I don't often have an expectation. infact the only thing I have ever said I dislike at all, and only then when done repeatedly, is ignoring stimuli. So yeah, I mean if I guess that the archmage being intimidating will make the PC take the 1,000gp pay out instead of the 10,000gp pay out he wants and the player decided that instead he is so intimidated he can't work for him at all... I would be okay with it.

Or the PC can stand in the intimidation storm and scream his defiance at the archmage. There's nothing wrong with someone failing to be intimidated by someone who someone else finds intimidating.

I know folks who find movie and TV stars to be intimidating. They won't approach them and are unable to even speak when the star speaks to them. Me, I treat them like normal people. They aren't intimidating to me at all.

 

[HammerMan]

I don't care if not everyone agrees with me. Their agreement is not required for what I'm saying about the rules to be true.

however you also must admit it is at least possible to read it our way, and as such our way is ALSO true to the rules.

I don't have any preferred approach to running games. I try to do what the rules say to do because I think games tend to work better when I do that.

cool, and I doubt anyone has tried to change your mind

If the rules said I should be rolling for color, then I would do that. But they don't, so I don't. That doesn't mean you're wrong for rolling for color.

except this isn't just that you keep (over at least 3 years) showing up to ttell people you know the 1 true way to read the rules and as such anyone else that is reading it differently is wrong, but they are free to be wrong if they want...

You've shown where you're willing to ignore rules that don't support your approach.

do you mean when I admit I have house rules... I am going to go out on a limb and bet most people have house rules... we aren't talking about them no matter how many times they get dragged in

Which you can do at the table. Just not in a discussion about what the rules actually say. You will get objections when you do that.

the way YOU get objections when you state YOUR way of reading the rules.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

wait, so if I were role playing in your game and said "I can just walk through walls" how do you handle that?

There is a world of difference between what a PC thinks and what they know. Attempting to walk through a wall just because the character thinks they can would result in an adjudication of imposing the bloodied condition upon the PC's nose. (Yes, I know there is no bloodied condition in 5e...)

What if I say "no it isn't raining today"?

Ok. So what? If it is raining, they are getting wet. Maybe they have a flaw of being a pathological liar or weirdly unable to feel water. Inspiration! But don't try to earn it from that same flaw more than once a session.

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.

I cannot give an example. People do roleplay based on what is going on in the game in the context of their character. It's just not the DM's job to enforce the manner in which a player roleplays how their character thinks, acts, or speaks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Not sure I follow. I indicated how a player roleplaying fits into the play loop. Then I describe something that is a major pet peeve of mine. Do I need the disclaimer "unless a specific rule - such as a spell or NPC ability - says otherwise"?

Yes, the parenthetical in your first sentence seems to need to address the specific/general question. Why is the general rule for players determining thoughts of their PCs immune to the specific outcome of an ability check?

 

[HammerMan]

Or the PC can stand in the intimidation storm and scream his defiance at the archmage. There's nothing wrong with someone failing to be intimidated by someone who someone else finds intimidating.

as long as it is an in game reaction to the intimidation...

I know folks who find movie and TV stars to be intimidating.

okay, I know people who are afraid of dogs... I know people who are afraid of clowns.... what does this mean?

They won't approach them and are unable to even speak when the star speaks to them. Me, I treat them like normal people. They aren't intimidating to me at all.

Okay... that is fine, no one (Not one person in this thread) would disagree with you