D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

This question puts the cart before the horse. The instruction the rules contain is that a DM should call for a roll when they decide the outcome is uncertain.

Not that outcomes have an innate certainty or uncertainty that binds the DM.

Try making a player roll to have their PC walk across a normal room. You'll find out in no uncertain terms what the outcome is.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's up to the DM to decide if the outcome is uncertain. If they do, then they are suspending an aspect of role-playing, because wherever something is uncertain, it is not determined.

Can you clarify why you feel there is some constraint on a DM deeming an interaction uncertain, given they may suspend role-playing, setting it to the back to give mechanics primacy in some regard?

Again, I don’t feel there is a constraint on the DM deeming an interaction is uncertain. The rules are incredibly permissive to the DM and basically don’t place any constraints on them at all, so I consider arguing about what the DM can or can’t do pretty pointless. The DM can do whatever they want.

However, I do not see anywhere in the rules that suggests the DM ought to suspend roleplaying in order to give the mechanics primacy in this circumstance. The rules don’t say the DM can’t or shouldn’t do so, just as they don’t say the DM can’t or shouldn’t do anything. But they don’t seem to say the DM should, and in fact, the statement that roleplaying is part of all aspects of the game would seem to indicate that suspending roleplaying is probably counter to the intent of the designers. If a DM decides to do so anyway (which the rules do permit), they are doing so of their own volition - which is to say, without the support of the rules.

 

[clearstream]

Try making a player roll to have their PC walk across a normal room. You'll find out in no uncertain terms what the outcome is.

With great power comes great responsibility!

My argument here is that the rules call for a DM to decide if walking across the room is uncertain. If they decide it is, then that becomes a fact in the fiction. Perhaps not one that will sell itself to the players, I grant you..

 

[Charlaquin]

Try making a player roll to have their PC walk across a normal room. You'll find out in no uncertain terms what the outcome is.

Or better yet, try telling the player that the monster hits them without a roll because the outcome of their attack is not uncertain.

 

[clearstream]

Again, I don’t feel there is a constraint on the DM deeming an interaction is uncertain. The rules are incredibly permissive to the DM and basically don’t place any constraints on them at all, so I consider arguing about what the DM can or can’t do pretty pointless. The DM can do whatever they want.

However, I do not see anywhere in the rules that suggests the DM ought to suspend roleplaying in order to give the mechanics primacy in this circumstance. The rules don’t say the DM can’t or shouldn’t do so, just as they don’t say the DM can’t or shouldn’t do anything. But they don’t seem to say the DM should, and in fact, the statement that roleplaying is part of all aspects of the game would seem to indicate that suspending roleplaying is probably counter to the intent of the designers. If a DM decides to do so anyway (which the rules do permit), they are doing so of their own volition - which is to say, without the support of the rules.

Here I feel you speak to your own predisposition. Don't neglect that role-playing and ability Checks are expressly granted equal primacy.

It feels like you're committed to wanting a reason a DM should go with uncertain, because of your assumption it must be certain.

 

[Maxperson]

It's up to the DM to decide if the outcome is uncertain. If they do, then they are suspending an aspect of role-playing, because wherever something is uncertain, it is not determined.

Not with what a PC thinks or does. The rules give that power to the player.

Can you clarify why you feel there is some constraint on a DM deeming an interaction uncertain, given they may suspend role-playing, setting it to the back to give mechanics primacy in some regard?

Because the rules grant that ability to the player. The player decides what his character thinks, so a failed insight roll can't make the PC think anything the player doesn't want the PC thinking. A failed intimidation roll cannot make the PC think the creature is intimidating. That's on the player. And so on.

Because those ability checks can't change what the PC thinks, the outcome is never in doubt so the roll can't be called in the first place. Not by the rules anyway.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here I feel you speak to your own predisposition. Don't neglect that role-playing and ability Checks are expressly granted equal primacy.

It feels like you're committed to wanting a reason a DM should go with uncertain, because of your assumption it must be certain.

My belief that it is certain is not an assumption, it’s the conclusion I’ve drawn from my reading of the rules, such as the statement under discussion that a player decides what their character does. To establish uncertainty, the DM must suspend that decision-making power, which I do not see support in the rules for them doing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have not claimed that the DM is prevented from deeming the outcome of a social interaction with a PC uncertain. My claim is that it is not supported - that the rules don’t instruct the DM to do so. The rules don’t prevent the DM from doing anything.

It seems to me that one of the disconnects here is that there is disagreement on whether it is meaningful to make this distinction. I think it is, but not everybody is on board.

 

[Charlaquin]

It seems to me that one of the disconnects here is that there is disagreement on whether it is meaningful to make this distinction. I think it is, but not everybody is on board.

I think that’s really at the heart of most of these interminable discussions.

Some of us: I don’t see support in the rules for XYZ.

Others of us: The rules don’t say I can’t do XYZ!

Some of us: I know, I didn’t say they do. I just said I don’t see support for it.

Others of us: Stop one true waying your reading of the rules!

Some of us: I’m not, you can do whatever you want.

Others of us: But you said the rules say we can’t do XYZ!

Some of us: ???

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think that’s really at the heart of most of these interminable discussions.

Some of us: I don’t see support in the rules for XYZ.

Others of us: The rules don’t say I can’t do XYZ!

Some of us: I know, I didn’t say they do. I just said I don’t see support for it.

Others of us: Stop one true waying your reading of the rules!

Some of us: I’m not, you can do whatever you want.

Others of us: But you said the rules say we can’t do XYZ!

Some of us: ???

You forgot the part where somebody tries to win by pseudo-casually mentioning that they started playing D&D in 1979.