D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

I suspect you are looking at this tiny snippet of "Parley (vs. PCs)" that @Bill Zebub posted in isolation from the rest of the game rules, principles, and advice. Are you familiar with how Dungeon World (or PbtA) works? If you are not familiar with how DW works - as seems to be the case when asking about a general rule that covers <6 - then it seems a bit premature, if not odd, to declare that you have found a flaw or a bug in the game design and then proceed to berate the shortcomings of the game and the designer.

You cited that the game designer and others had called out critics of Parlay for needing an adult-to-adult talk, and cheesing. ("I did run this by Jeremy Strandberg and other Stonetop fans. The general consensus...")*

If its a PbtA game, then accepted that it will rely on the DM move for <6. However, it carries the mark XP element into 7+ and 10+ which is unusual and I think demands more than simple reliance on the general rule. It's also not clear what the DM move should be, given that the interaction is one between players it would be beneficial for them to say something more about what DM moves look like. How does a DM sell any kind of hard move?

P1: Will you do my hair for me?
P2: I might. You can roll.
P1: 5!?
DM: ...?

Soft moves seem quite obvious (e.g. put the players on the spot to carry forward the fiction), but I would appreciate guidance as to what these putative hard moves look like? I mean, this rolls out from a conversation between players - how does the DM make a move that doesn't tread on their authority over their roleplay. The safest bet might be to apply a bond or something like that. When the answer is "yes", Stonetop Parley marks XP on any roll. That's odd - I can't think of a DW move that does that. DW has two pages of explanation for Parley, and that is with GM characters. Does such expanded explanation exist in Stonetop?

[EDITED *On re-reading your post, I see that you did call out the white-room part as your own assessment. I misread that. Note also that as I thought this over, I was able to understand my views better and made edits. I can see that I really did get my back up when it felt to me like noticing an exploit had me called out - by the game designer - as childish and cheesing!]

 

[Lyxen]

It's not the same thing. You describing an NPC lying to the PCs is describing the environment - step 1. The PCs saying they are lying to an NPC is step 2 - describing their actions. Like any action, you can resolve it with an ability check if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

I can see your perspective, built from mine, it is inherentrly flawed as it stems from the fact that everything the PCs do starts from them, that they do actions and receive description and that is all that is happening in the game.

It might be the way the players play the game when it is their turn to act, but the fact that it is happening does absolutely not preclude actions starting from any other element in the game, controlled by the DM.

The best example is combat, if the DM decides that an NPC is attacking a PC, this is an uncertain action which does not come from anything the player has done, it is initiated by the DM, is uncertain, resolved by a dice roll and will affect the PC, technically, but also in terms of description.

It's exactly the same with the DM deciding that an NPC will deceive a PC, it's an uncertain action which does not come from anything the player has done, it is initiated by the DM, is uncertain, resolved by a dice roll and will affect the PC, because the description done by the DM willc certainly influence the player into his decision making.

The rules for attitude are in an explicitly optional rules space.

Actuallo no, these are actual rules, and nothing in there suggest that they are more optional than combat rules. The fact that these rules are invisible to players does not mean that they are not rules, and they are not options.

It is, however, not the same between PCs and NPCs. A PC is lying to an NPC to get it to believe something for some purpose.

Maybe, but it's ot requested that this purpose is described by the player.

Once that is assessed, the DM can call for a check, if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. An NPC lying to a PC is just describing the environment - no roll. What the PCs do with that is up to them.

And you will have a hard time proving that it's different from what the DM does with his NPC and the information that the PC is providing to him. It's exactly the same, it's entirely up to the DM to decide what the NPC will do with them.

Since it is up to them, there can be no ability check because there is no uncertainty as to the outcome of the task. The players say whether they believe the NPC or not or take some other action.

And the DM does exactly the same thing with his NPC, no difference, he decides whether the NPC believes the PC or not. Q.E.D.

 

[Lyxen]

What you can do is describe the orc's attempt to intimidate. Or you can do as you've said and roll the die to see how intimidating you feel the orc is being, but that's not an ability check under the rules.

It is, the DM can decide to roll whatever he wants whenever he wants, where do the rules ever say that ability checks are restricted to PCs, or even worse that some ability checks are restricted to PCs ?

It's certainly a valid way to play, but it isn't RAW, RAI, or RAI. There's no actual rule, rule interpretation, or rule intent that allows ability checks just to see how intimidating an orc is.

And neither is there any rule that say how intimidating a PC is to an orc, whether he succeeds on the check or not. Turn it as you want, it's absolutely symmetrical.

 

[Mordhau]

And neither is there any rule that say how intimidating a PC is to an orc, whether he succeeds on the check or not. Turn it as you want, it's absolutely symmetrical.

What would it mean for there to be a rule to say such? Intimidate is a means not an end.

 

[Aldarc]

Huh? You cited that the designer and others had called out critics of Parlay for needing an adult-to-adult talk, and cheesing.

Not quite. I said nothing about them calling out any critics of Parley. I said that one common response among the Stonetop community involved having an adult-to-adult talk with the players in question who may be trying to use Parley (vs. PCs) to fish for XP. I see nothing offensive about this approach, as @Ovinomancer and hopefully others know, I'm a huge advocate of adults simply talking out game table issues responsibly, particularly if people may not be playing the game in good faith. In my experience, these are usually table issues that can be reasonably discussed rather than game issues.

That said, cheesing the game was already part of the prompt when you presumed scenarios wherein players may be trying to fish this move for XP.

If its a PbtA game, then yes it relies on the DM move for <6. However, it shifts the mark XP element into 7+ and 10+ which is unusual and I think demands more than simple reliance on the general rule.

Stonetop is based on Dungeon World, which is a PbtA game that uses mark XP on a 6- result.

Please note several things about this move*: (1) there are conditions in the fiction that are required for it to be triggered by the GM, and (2) the XP gained in 7+ and 10+ results involve the targeted player rather than the one who is rolling. While it may seem unusual that the targeted player receives XP, they are effectively "losing" the result by agreeing to do what the rolling player wants.

Here is a blog post from Jeremy Strandberg on their Spouting Lore blog that discusses his thoughts on Parley in Dungeon World and how/why they made the changes they did for Stonetop/Homebrew World.

* @Bill Zebub posted an out-of-date version of the move. It's still mostly the same, but it's now called "Persuade (vs. PCs)."

It's also not clear what the DM move should be, given that the exchange is between players. What I wanted to point out is that there are good reasons for not just falling back on the general rule in this case, and if they do so I think they need to say something more about that.

If it's not clear, have you ever once considered that this is not the entire write-up for the move in the (unpublished) book? Have you ever once considered asking for further clarification about this move, Stonetop, or Dungeon World?

Stonetop has a nice premise, great art, some interesting side-rule incorporations (possibly inspired by other games like Gloomhaven or Kingdom Death Monster). I'm not thrilled as part of their possible audience to be called out as (by implication) childish or cheesing for disliking a patent bug in one of their rules.

You weren't being called out. That is entirely in your own head. I didn't think that anything about the general responses I collected somehow called anyone out. These sort of comments (i.e., you're forgetting a rule, talk it out with the players, begin and end with the fiction) are perfectly reasonable considerations for any TTRPG discussion.

Nothing about what I wrote somehow warranted your needlessly hostile tone, declaring the game flawed, or insulting the designer. I'm not sure why you seemingly want to escalate this into a non-existent slight against you. I'm trying to help clarify matters, but that's not going to happen if your primary concern remains castigating the game (and the designer) for an imagined slight rather than understanding the rules with any shred of good faith.

I do think that you are mistaken for declaring this a "patent bug in one of their rules" - especially one that you have not demonstrated is flawed - that betrays a lack of familiarity with the rules. Should you ask politely and respectfully, I am more than willing to clarify those rules. But I would recommend asking in good faith rather than you just unilaterally declaring that you have found flaws in a game you are clearly ignorant about. Because otherwise that would be a "patent bug" in your own understanding in what I had hoped would be good faith discourse about this move in Stonetop.

 

[Lyxen]

What would it mean for there to be a rule to say such? Intimidate is a means not an end.

And again, this goes to prove that there is no difference between NPCs and PCs. Both have ends and both can use means.

After that, once more, whether PCs or NPCs (or people in real life), no one is ever requested to state their aims/ends. Just what they are doing.

Finally, Intimidating someone might just be an end. First, in real life, just to assert authority or diminish someone else's. Second, in the rules of the game, to change the attitude of whoever you are targeting.

And, just as in real life nothing says what will happen if you fail or succeed, it might have any number of consequences. For both a PC or an NPC, whoever passed the check will look intimidating to the target. It does not mandate any response, and in both cases it's totally up to roleplay, the personality of the target, in short the roleplay of the player or the DM.

And for the "player agency" fanatics, this does not mandate any change as to how the PC thinks or feels inside, it's just a perception, like "that plate is hot" or "that flag is red". What the PC does with the information is still completely up to him, just as it is completely up to the DM what the NPC does with the information.

 

[Lyxen]

Again, because it seems I'm being treated poorly here, I 100% agree that PCs being immune to CHA proficiencies is RAI.

It really depends what you mean by "immune". Technically, yes, as there are no technical consequences, but note that there are also no technical consequences for a PC succeeding at a Cha check against an NPC, so NPCs are actually also immune to Cha proficiency.

The fact is that there are only roleplaying consequences, so from the technical perspective, everyone is immune (although, technically, if you apply the attitude rules on NPCs, the attitude might change, but the consequences are roleplaying ones anwyay).

However, there is one area in which the PCs are not immune, all their perceptions depend on the DM's descriptions. So if the DM decides that a deception check succeeds, the lie of the NPC will not be resolved and the player will miss a clue. The player will still be able to decide what he does, but he will lack the information to carry his plan, or even start his planning. So not so immune after all.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That's not a rule allowing rolls to determine how good someone is at something. That's a rule stating rolls are to determine success or failure.

Also, please note the second bolded portion. If you are proficient you are automatically particularly good at that skill, which means that you aren't going to be laughable at it no matter how poorly you roll.

Yes. This speaks to another trend at some tables where high ability check rolls by the players mean their PCs completed a task in a super duper great manner. Meanwhile, low ability check rolls means the PC was clumsy or just plain terrible at said task. I find these roll-based outcome narrations by the DM (or player) to fly in the face of the fact that the PCs are capable adventurers. It’s telling that there are no crits on ability checks or saves per RAW. A low ability check roll below the DC simply means the PC did not accomplish their goal and will suffer the meaningful consequence. No need to add insult to injury, IMO. Again, nothing wrong with choosing to play this way if it is fun for the table, but there is no rules support for it.

 

[Aldarc]

@clearstream, I didn't notice your edits until well after I had written my reply. I will leave my original reply as is, even if I would change things in retrospect, but I will try responding to your edits.

("I did run this by Jeremy Strandberg and other Stonetop fans. The general consensus...")*

I posted the issue on the Stonetop on their Discord sub-channel, wherein Jeremy often participates in discussion. That doesn't necessarily mean that the views that emerged from that general consensus necessarily reflect what the designer himself said.

How does a DM sell any kind of hard move?

P1: Will you do my hair for me?
P2: I might. You can roll.
P1: 5!?
DM: ...?

I'm skeptical that a roll for a Persuade (vs. PC) Move would be reasonably called for here as (1) there are do not appear to be anything at stake in the fiction, and (2) P1 is barely pressing P2, and P2 isn't really offering resistance. One of the required conditions is "when you press or entice a PC and they resist."

The example is a bit silly and the players aren't really beginning and ending with the fiction, but maybe there are stakes here. Let's imagine what they might be. Is there significance in the village of Stonetop to ask someone to dress up their hair? Is it a cultural sign of love and courtship? Or dominance and superiority? Or submission and inferiority? Is there a reluctance from P2 to help P1 look their best for a social occasion, such as a community celebration (e.g., festival, feast, wedding, etc.)? In which case, what sort of stakes and resistance from P2 could there be in play?

On a hard move, maybe P2 gets P1 to do their hair instead, signifying a higher social status between them. Or maybe a love interest or rival from P1 comes into the scene who finds themselves upset and betrayed by the implied intimacy of the request made to P2, creating division between all the involved characters (or even the wider community).

Soft moves seem quite obvious (e.g. put the players on the spot to carry forward the fiction), but I would appreciate guidance as to what these putative hard moves look like? I mean, this rolls out from a conversation between players - how does the DM make a move that doesn't tread on their authority over their roleplay. The safest bet might be to apply a bond or something like that. When the answer is "yes", Stonetop Parley marks XP on any roll. That's odd - I can't think of a DW move that does that. DW has two pages of explanation for Parley, and that is with GM characters. Does such expanded explanation exist in Stonetop?

Yes. There is a two page explanation of Persuade (vs. PCs) in the unfinished book. The first page covers the basics of the move, including guidance for what transpires on 10+, 7-9, and 6- results. The second page includes a play example of how this may play out: P1 "We gotta keep going" and P2 "no, I don't wanna. I wanna stay here."

Here is what is currently in the playtest materials for making a hard move with Persuade (vs. PCs):

On a 6-, you might turn their move back on them and let the targeted player ask how they could get the Persuading character to do something. Or you could interrupt the conversation with some other move, like introducing a threat or changing the environment. Don’t presume actions or reactions from either player, and don’t tell them how they feel. If you’re stumped, query the table (particularly the targeted player) for ideas.

This bit from the book is practically identical to what Strandberg wrote in his blog that I linked to in my previous post.

 

[clearstream]

Not quite. I said nothing about them calling out any critics of Parley. I said that one common response among the Stonetop community involved having an adult-to-adult talk with the players in question who may be trying to use Parley (vs. PCs) to fish for XP. I see nothing offensive about this approach, as @Ovinomancer and hopefully others know, I'm a huge advocate of adults simply talking out game table issues responsibly, particularly if people may not be playing the game in good faith. In my experience, these are usually table issues that can be reasonably discussed rather than game issues.

That said, cheesing the game was already part of the prompt when you presumed scenarios wherein players may be trying to fish this move for XP.

I noticed it could be exploited. It is common in game design to count exploitable mechanics as undesirable. Therefore I offered the critique that it could be exploited.

Here is a blog post from Jeremy Strandberg on their Spouting Lore blog that discusses his thoughts on Parley in Dungeon World and how/why they made the changes they did for Stonetop/Homebrew World.

* @Bill Zebub posted an out-of-date version of the move. It's still mostly the same, but it's now called "Persuade (vs. PCs)."

I skimmed it, but that blog gives helpful context. Is this the final version?

Parley (vs. PCs)
When you press or entice a PC and they resist, you can roll +CHA: on a 10+, both; on a 7-9, pick 1:

• They mark XP if they do what you want
• They must do what you want, or reveal how you could convince them to do so.

(+ several paragraphs of guidance and example)

You can see that I was responding only to the material presented in the OP. In response to my criticism, you might have said that the final version adds the context that I was calling for. Instead, you seemed to say that it wasn't necessary and escalated to denigrating my input. Let's set aside umbrage going forward, because on my side I rose to words that I found inflammatory in your post. And I feel sure it was neither of our intents to provoke the other.

There still seems to be a problem in the rule, and this is more in the way of a bug than an exploit. On 10+ I choose both, on 7-9 I choose one. But how is choosing one any worse than choosing both? Can't I just always choose - they do what I want and mark XP? Also it seems like I roll if the other PC resists, which seems worse to me than the version in the OP. The other PC can't just nope my move on them anymore, that could easily feel unpleasant in play. (Say yes, or let me roll and perhaps still force you to say yes.)

If it's not clear, have you ever once considered that this is not the entire write-up for the move in the (unpublished) book? Have you ever once considered asking for further clarification about this move, Stonetop, or Dungeon World?

Seeing as I understood the OP to be discussing an unfinished work, I asked if there were other other references for the move. Possibly you would have pointed me to them in your first response to me, had you read into my point as I intended that I was looking for further context, generally.

You weren't being called out. That is entirely in your own head. I didn't think that anything about the general responses I collected somehow called anyone out. These sort of comments (i.e., you're forgetting a rule, talk it out with the players, begin and end with the fiction) are perfectly reasonable considerations for any TTRPG discussion.

Nothing about what I wrote somehow warranted your needlessly hostile tone, declaring the game flawed, or insulting the designer. I'm not sure why you seemingly want to escalate this into a non-existent slight against you. I'm trying to help clarify matters, but that's not going to happen if your primary concern remains castigating the game (and the designer) for an imagined slight rather than understanding the rules with any shred of good faith.

I have a few conflicting feelings about this. I accept you didn't intend to write anything provocative. You might accept that I found it provocative, and that I did not intend to write anything hostile. I was aiming for objective criticism, but I accept that you found what I wrote to feel hostile.

That said, the proposed mitigations for the possibility of exploits in the blog seem problematic.

On a 6-, you might turn their move back on them and let the targeted player ask how they could get the Parleying playing to do something, or offer an opportunity to the targeted player. Or you could interrupt the conversation with some other move, like introducing a threat or changing the environment. Don’t presume actions or reactions from either player, and don’t tell them how they feel. If you’re stumped, query the table (particularly the targeted player) for ideas.

It's right to say, don't tell them how they feel, and consider querying the table, but bringing in something outside of it as your DM move is choosing a move that doesn't follow. Turning the tables would be perfect for a player-to-NPC interaction, but feels clunky to me for a player-to-player interaction. Imagine this move used multiple times: it's going to be problematic for some groups. Possibly the best way to use it will be as rarely as possible, which typically isn't what one aims for with a game mechanic.

I do think that you are mistaken for...

In the interest of moving forward, I will set aside most of your closing sentences. I was wrong in saying patent bug, I should have said it was an obvious exploit, as that would have been the more correct characterisation. The rule worked, but could be exploited. The new version is buggy, because it has a redundant state. Or you could say inelegant, perhaps that's better. I don't put that pejoratively: it's not a sweeping critique of Stonetop. And it is only a narrow critique of the designer.

Narrowly, the game designer hasn't hit the nail on the head with their Parley mechanic. From skimming their notes, it seems for most of its evolution Parley was for pressing NPCs. Perhaps coming out of dissatisfactions with DW Parley. Is it right that only later iterations brought in its use against PCs? When I read their examples (of PC-to-PC) it's not clear why the PCs can't just roleplay it out? Why impose a mechanic at all. What is the PC-to-PC problem we hope to solve with this solution?

To my evaluation, it is even now a piece of flawed game design. I like what is being attempted. I don't think that the attempt is yet successful.