D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

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.

That's an effective way to put your position, albeit making a great deal out of what might be more accurately described - in context - as a definition of roleplaying for the purposes of 5th edition.

Social interactions have two primary aspects: roleplaying and ability checks.

Roleplaying is one aspect of a social interaction. Ability checks is another aspect. Both are equal (both primary.)

Roleplaying
Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.

Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game, and it comes to the fore during social interactions. Your character’s quirks, mannerisms, and personality influence how interactions resolve.

When I am not determining how my character thinks, acts, and talks, I am not roleplaying. Hence we join in a roleplaying game. The tension between concession of authority to rules, and deeply valuing roleplaying, is a long-standing one. I need not always be roleplaying, or always be roleplaying to its fullest extent, while playing. Indeed, there are many circumstances where I need to selectively suspend roleplaying or incorporate mechanical facts into it.

In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.

When a DM rules that the outcome of a social interaction with a PC is uncertain, they are suspending roleplaying. Baseline D&D entrusts DMs with significant power, and suspending roleplaying isn't an all or nothing proposition. A DM can suspend roleplaying in a limited way, or along specific dimensions. They must do so, for the game to operate as a game. Many examples have already been given.

If a DM decides that in a given case they wish to suspend roleplaying in whole or part, they can deem the outcome of social interaction with a PC uncertain. Not only does nothing prevent that, but a DM must do it almost incessantly for the game to operate as a game. It's worth re-emphasising that it is not all or nothing. A silence spell might suspend a PCs ability to talk: they can continue roleplaying along all other dimensions.

A counter-argument could be to point to "roleplaying is part of every aspect of the game". It is grasping roleplaying as all or nothing that might give that the appearance of that being problematic. Roleplaying is not given primacy over ability checks - both are primary - and roleplaying is something that can "come to the fore" implying that it can also subside to the background. It is multi-faceted: not just one thing.

 

[Maxperson]

Whatever. I’ll let @iserith keep tilting at this particular windmill.

When I get home and am not on a phone, I'll take up the lance as well.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's an effective way to put your position, albeit making a great deal out of what might be more accurately described - in context - as a definition of roleplaying for the purposes of 5th edition.


Roleplaying is one aspect of a social interaction. Ability checks is another aspect. Both are equal (both primary.)


When I am not determining how my character thinks, acts, and talks, I am not roleplaying. Hence we join in a roleplaying game. The tension between concession of authority to rules, and deeply valuing roleplaying, is a long-standing one. I need not always be roleplaying, or always be roleplaying to its fullest extent, while playing. Indeed, there are many circumstances where I need to selectively suspend roleplaying or incorporate mechanical facts into it.


When a DM rules that the outcome of a social interaction with a PC is uncertain, they are suspending roleplaying. Baseline D&D entrusts DMs with significant power, and suspending roleplaying isn't an all or nothing proposition. A DM can suspend roleplaying in a limited way, or along specific dimensions. They must do so, for the game to operate as a game. Many examples have already been given.

If a DM decides that in a given case they wish to suspend roleplaying in whole or part, they can deem the outcome of social interaction with a PC uncertain. Not only does nothing prevent that, but a DM must do it almost incessantly for the game to operate as a game. It's worth re-emphasising that it is not all or nothing. A silence spell might suspend a PCs ability to talk: they can continue roleplaying along all other dimensions.

Great analysis. I don’t disagree with you that a DM must suspend roleplaying (as it’s defined here) in order to justify using an ability check to determine what a player’s character does, rather than leaving it up to the player to do so. Can you cite anywhere in the rules where the DM is instructed to do this in the case of an attempt to socially influence a PC’s decisions?

A counter-argument could be to point to "roleplaying is part of every aspect of the game". It is grasping roleplaying as all or nothing that might give that the appearance of that being problematic. Roleplaying is not given primacy over ability checks - both are primary - and roleplaying is something that can "come to the fore" implying that it can also subside to the background. It is multi-faceted: not just one thing.

Yeah, I’d say that seems like a strong counter-argument to the one you presented above.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I’m going to read through the Monster Manual myself, but another poster flatly contradicted you about how many monsters have these skills.

At least one of you must be wrong.

Every creature has the ability to make CHA ability checks. That some have proficiencies in CHA skills is icing. The number that do (and it's not a rare number, although it is minority) just make this extremely explicit. I can attempt to persuade someone without the persuasion proficiency (general argument, not engaging the current topic).

 

[Maxperson]

I’m going to read through the Monster Manual myself, but another poster flatly contradicted you about how many monsters have these skills.

At least one of you must be wrong.

Keep in mind I specifically went from A to D(that's when I got bored of it). There 85 I believe monsters(I counted each subtype of a monster separately except for dragon ages). 2 had intimidate, a bugbear chief I think and cambion. 4 had persuasion. 3 good dragons and 1 evil. I can't remember the types of the top of my head.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Great analysis. I don’t disagree with you that a DM must suspend roleplaying (as it’s defined here) in order to justify using an ability check to determine what a player’s character does, rather than leaving it up to the player to do so. Can you cite anywhere in the rules where the DM is instructed to do this in the case of an attempt to socially influence a PC’s decisions?

Can you cite anywhere in the rules where the DM is instructed not to? This is asking someone to do your own homework -- that they have to disprove what you want rather than you proving what you want.

Yeah, I’d say that seems like a strong counter-argument to the one you presented above.

It's only strong if you're considering roleplaying in a specific light. It's perfectly fine (and within the rules) to engage in pawn stance play and not bother at all with what your character thinks or wants. This is a secondary line -- for the rules for roleplaying to be binding, they must also be telling people how they must roleplay to play the game.

 

[clearstream]

Keep in mind I specifically went from A to D(that's when I got bored of it). There 85 I believe monsters(I counted each subtype of a monster separately except for dragon ages). 2 had intimidate, a bugbear chief I think and cambion. 4 had persuasion. 3 good dragons and 1 evil. I can't remember the types of the top of my head.

It's easy to get the full number. Go to DnDBeyond.com/monsters. Use Advanced Filters to select all the social interaction skills (deception, intimidation, persuasion) and get the count per page. There are dozens of monsters with social skills.

[EDIT I just noticed you corrected your number. So I guess you've already done something like this!]

 

[Maxperson]

It's easy to get the full number. Go to DnDBeyond.com/monsters. Use Advanced Filters to select all the social interaction skills (deception, intimidation, persuasion) and get the count per page. There are dozens of monsters with social skills.

[EDIT I just noticed you corrected your number. So I guess you've already done something like this!]

Nope! I did it the hard way. Page by page counting.

 

[Charlaquin]

Every creature has the ability to make CHA ability checks. That some have proficiencies in CHA skills is icing. The number that do (and it's not a rare number, although it is minority) just make this extremely explicit. I can attempt to persuade someone without the persuasion proficiency (general argument, not engaging the current topic).

It seems like you’re treating “attempt to persuade someone” and “make a CHA ability check” as essentially interchangeable, and proficiency in the persuasion skill as strong evidence that a creature is intended to be able to do that thing. This is not how I understand ability checks to work. In my understanding, all creatures can attempt to persuade someone, and if the creature’s attempt to do so has an uncertain outcome, the DM may call for a Charisma check to determine what happens. When the DM calls for an ability check (Charisma or otherwise) to resolve an attempt to influence someone with tact, social graces, or good nature, the creature can add its proficiency bonus to the check if it is proficient in Persuasion.

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, I’d say that seems like a strong counter-argument to the one you presented above.

It more buttresses the argument, I believe, when worked through. Once we grasp roleplaying as not all or nothing, and concede that a DM can (and must!) suspend facets of roleplaying for the sake of RPG as game, we can see that a DM is not at all prevented from deeming the outcome of a social interaction with a PC uncertain.

I was intentionally casting this debate as highlighting the tension that we see in many forum discussions, between the primacy of roleplaying over the primacy of game. 5th edition settles that for us: it expressly gives roleplay and ability checks equal primacy.