D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Ovinomancer]

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

How can it be allowed but not supported? The entirety of the support for your argument rests on a single sentence in an out-of-the-way passage in the PHB and further requires dismissing other clearer text that contradicts it (like monsters use ability checks like PCs do) as somehow meaning to only apply to monster on monster interactions (which isn't supported at all but is required to claim support for your position). I don't follow the argument that claims one way is clearly supported but has to dismiss other lines of evidence supporting different claims to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

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...

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

It's not wrong to tell someone who is misinterpreting a rule that they are incorrect. If a rule says only green fingers can poke someone in the eye and you "interpret" that rule to be red fingers can do it, too, you will get objections.

There is no interpretation of the social skills and social interaction sections that are a contradiction to the PC roleplaying rules. The best you can say is that since nothing forbids their use on a PC, they can be used on a PC. Fine. That still doesn't contradict the rule allowing the player to decide for his PC.

 

[HammerMan]

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...)

(hey another house rule to bug people...we use bloodied) how is them pretending your wall isn't real and they can walk through it different then saying a spell doesn't effect them, saying that ANYTHING you describe isn't real?

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.

wait you have been arguing that people don't and there is nothing DMs can do about it (in my experience do it long enough and you wont be invited back) Now you cange it to they always do...

 

[iserith]

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.

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

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...

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

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

The only way you get to your reading of the rules in my view is ignoring things that are inconvenient or obfuscating by bringing in rules or equivalencies that don't actually apply. This whole thing is really all down to uncertainty as @Charlaquin stated upthread. That's all there is to it and the rules are plain as day on this point: If there is no uncertainty, there can be no ability check. And the rules say there is no uncertainty about how a player decides their own character acts in the face of deception, intimidation, or persuasion - they say how. No uncertainty, no ability check. Nothing else matters here.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Sure. I'm reacting to it. I'm just not intimidated by it. You want this for 1000 Mr. Archmage. Well, I spit in the eye of those who try to bully me into accepting less than it's worth. Now I'm not going to sell it for less than 12000. It went up 2000 for your temerity. Take it or leave it.

Now, I may end up a toad for that, but I reacted to the intimidation as appropriate for my PC.

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

It means that just because you think a PC would be intimidated(you find what is happening to be intimidating), doesn't mean that the player of the PC does.

 

[HammerMan]

It's not wrong to tell someone who is misinterpreting a rule that they are incorrect.

it is if you refuse to understand why both are vaild readings of the rule

If a rule says only green fingers can poke someone in the eye and you "interpret" that rule to be red fingers can do it, too, you will get objections.

um... what?!?

There is no interpretation of the social skills and social interaction sections that are a contradiction to the PC roleplaying rules.

except plenty of us KEEP showing and TELLING that they do

The best you can say is that since nothing forbids their use on a PC, they can be used on a PC.

um... or we can show that they are present on antaganist that are mostly used to oppse PCs, and no rule says they can't be used when present...

That still doesn't contradict the rule allowing the player to decide for his PC.

nothing I do contradicts that either.

 

[Maxperson]

it is if you refuse to understand why both are vaild readings of the rule


um... what?!?

except plenty of us KEEP showing and TELLING that they do

Yep. I keep getting told that red is green. Declarations from people trying to tell me that red is green isn't convincing.

um... or we can show that they are present on antaganist that are mostly used to oppse PCs, and no rule says they can't be used when present...

Which.....................................................doesn't contradict the player's ability to decide for his PC what the response is. So use them on the PC. Go for it. The player still gets to decide whether the PC is persuaded or intimidated. Not the DM.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

In order for the results of an ability check to override the player’s authority over their character’s decisions, an ability check must first actually be made. Since the criteria for when to make an ability check is that the outcome of the action is uncertain, the DM does not have the support of the rules in calling for an ability check to resolve an action with an outcome that is not uncertain. Since a player decides their character’s actions, an action taken with the goal of forcing the character to make a particular decision is certain to fail. Therefore the DM is not supported in calling for an ability check to resolve that action.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Hey, I never claimed the D&D 5e rules were well organized or presented. If your opinion is that these rules should have been written better, I agree with you. And it’s odd because I actually think they were written much better in the open playtest packets.

And yes, I know what people are likely to say to this: I’m carrying over assumptions based on my experience with a previous “edition” by running D&D 5th edition like it’s D&D Next. I actually think that’s a perfectly fair critique of my position, D&D Next does heavily color my interpretation of the 5e rules. However, I think based on the fact that Jeremy Crawford agrees with my interpretation, it’s clear that I’ve at least arrived at the RAI through that lens, which I think is most often not the case when someone carries over assumptions from previous editions.

I wouldn't argue with an RAI interpretation. I've said often enough that I actually agree with your approach. I disagree with the argument you're making to support it, though, as I find your rules argument to be pretty flawed. I prefer an argument that stands up some clear principles of play and how you can use the 5e ruleset to achieve those. I think the game plays better if you start with the principle that it's never uncertain what a PC thinks because that's entirely up to the player. I don't think this is mandated or extra supported by the rules, though. I find the rules to be essentially a Rorschach blot -- you see in them whatever you want to. There's some genius there I can appreciate, as it taps into decades of D&D to be kinda like whichever version you liked best (except 4e).

 

[HammerMan]

The only what you get to your reading of the rules in my view is ignoring things that are inconvenient or obfuscating by bringing in rules or equivalencies that don't actually apply.

again try stepping itno someone elses shoes, reread our arguments and pretend to be us... re read it with fresh eyes and try to imagine our reading.

This whole thing is really all down to uncertainty as @Charlaquin stated upthread. That's all there is to it and the rules are plain as day on this point: If there is no uncertainty, there can be no ability check.

except we rule there is uncertainty and we do so by reading those rules.

And the rules say there is no uncertainty about how a player decides their own character acts in the face of deception, intimidation, or persuasion - they say how. No uncertainty, no ability check. Nothing else matters here.

please show me this carve out for "acts in the face of deception, intimidation, or persuasion" that would end this if a rule said that...but we both know they do not.