D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lyxen]

But a consequence of that outcome...regardless of which attribute or skill were used...cannot, in my interpretation, be that a player doesn't control action declarations for their character ("except exceptions").

Just as the DM doesn't control action declaration for an NPC.

So, as I said up-thread, if you want to rule that the orc has successfully intimidated the player character, go for it. But the player character still gets to decide how their character reacts to being intimidated, and that might be something that, to the DM, seems like the opposite of being intimidated.

And exactly the same for an NPC being "intimidated", which might, to the DM, seem like the opposite.

In my mind that makes the "intimidated" declaration moot, and you might as well just describe the orc as intimidating. But to each their own.

In all cases, it's only about description and roleplaying.

 

[Aldarc]

I agree that it shouldn't be. I was aiming to illustrate that we can't know in advance how groups are going to use this. As you pick up on, we don't know that P1 doesn't feel as strongly about their hair as Rhianna does about Vahid's refusal to leave.

It was interesting to read that blog and the guidance, because I'd pictured turning the tables, too. I was hesitant though. Is that really going to feel good in play? Will it drag out something that the players didn't really want to get into? Anyway, it's certainly that kind of guidance and exemplification that is needed.

I suppose the best counter on my concern about the exploitable version is to say that the DM won't call into play the move if it seems to them that it is being exploited. The problem however is that we can't have doubts about sincerity - they're going to hinder the flow of play - so the DM can't really be second-guessing the players. I guess I would modify my concern to say that it might prompt or provoke exploitation, and that it is the prompting or provoking that is going to be the problem. For example, I'm on the cusp and need just 1 more XP, and Jo suggests something. I can vocally resist and... hope Jo rolls 7+. It's not ideal.

I have no idea how other tables will use Persuade (vs. PCs) or Stonetop. Hypothetical tables and groups are outside of my ken. There is, however, plenty of guidance and play principles in the book that should help inform play procedures for other groups. In fact, I'm fairly confident that Stonetop will become one of the new gold standards for understanding how to run and play Dungeon World. The writing for Stonetop is top notch, and it demonstrates a lot of firsthand experience of running Dungeon World. This is all to say that I think that a GM who reads Stonetop through should have ample ideas about how to safely handle PCs who get into tense, awkward, or even unwanted Persuade (vs. PC) issues.

Moreover, I don't think that the GM not calling immediately for a move necessarily requires doubting player sincerity. It may also involve clarifying the stakes or the fiction that is in play, which is particularly useful when it comes to social scenes.

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.

I think that it came out of a general dissatisfaction with Parley as written and in practice, and a desire to account for differences between Parley (vs. NPCs) and Parley (vs. PCs). The use of social PCvPC is actually fairly common in a lot of PbtA games in some sort or another (e.g., Apocalypse World, Urban Shadows, Monsterhearts, etc.). It's honestly more surprising that Dungeon World doesn't have it than that Stonetop has it.

IMO, there are a number of benefits to a mechanic like this in PbtA games. (1) It allows players to play their characters with greater integrity by off-loading some social pressure and resolving conflict onto an intermediary mechanical resolution. (2) Subsequent soft and hard moves keeps play interesting and propels play forward. (3) It creates dramatic tension and stakes between player characters. Plenty of ink has been spilt in these forums about Point #1, including on the aforementioned thread about social/mental mechanics that @Bill Zebub alludes to in his OP, so I am not particularly interested in re-hashing that debate here.

I also think that another motivating factor for this mechanic is less about what it "solves," but, rather, what it generates in the game: i.e., the revelation of character. Here is what Jeremy says about it on his Spouting Lore blog (emphasis in bold, mine):

Ultimately, what I like about the Stonetop/HBW version is that:

1. It's easy to recognize when a PC is pressing or enticing someone, and from there whether a roll is necessary. You don't have to consider "is this leverage?" You just consider "are they resisting?"
2. The question posed by the move isn't usually "will they do what you want?" but rather "what will it take to convince them?" The move is basically an opportunity for you to tell them the requirements, and in so doing, reveal the NPC's personality and motivations.
3. The 7-9 results are quite easy to work with. I'm particularly fond of the "distasteful" option.
4. It's very flexible, and works in a wide variety of situations.

He is talking about Parley/Persuade (vs. NPCs), but I also suspect this is also a motivating factor for Persuade (vs. PC). You will still roleplay this all out, but this move will also reveal something about the personality, motivations, and desires of their characters, while also possibly generating dramatic consequences from soft and hard moves.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Show me the override in Charm Person that cannot be similarly explained away as only applying to non-PCs because the Roleplaying Rule shields the PCs.

If it fails the saving throw, it is Charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it. The Charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance. When the spell ends, the creature knows it was Charmed by you.

The bold part. "Charmed" is an actual condition, and cannot be confused for 'guidance' or flavor text.

I don't believe there is any similar thing for an action declaration that is resolved with an attribute(skill) roll.

This is the crux. If you aren't privileging the Roleplaying Rule, then the argument falters. And the privilege of the Roleplaying Rule is based on an assumption made to specifically privilege the Roleplaying Rule. We don't see this argument formed elsewhere, and in fact this very privileging of the Roleplaying Rule forces some rather tortured interpretations of other, more clearly stated rules.

I think this (as well as the charm question) comes down to which rules/text one regards as more general vs. more specific. It's true that there is no footnote explaining that Conditions, as enumerated in the PHB, take precedence over the Roleplaying Rule. We have to infer which ones we think are more general and more specific, and we may (and seem to) disagree about that.

Or by "circular" are you really invoking Gödel's theorem here? If so, I concede. Yes, we cannot axiomatize roleplaying theory; we need to start with an unprovable postulate. Mine is not Rule Zero, it's the Roleplaying Rule.

I have a good deal of knowledge about calculus. I don't, however, remember everything about calculus. In fact, some things I intentionally do not retain. And the reason for that is that I can rebuild that knowledge by extrapolation from the principles I do have committed to memory. And yet, the end result of that thinking isn't anything but knowledge -- once complete, it's no different that I now know this bit of how to do calculus than the bits I recalled before. Both are knowledge, and both can be further utilized -- at least until I discard the new bits again. Foundationally, this is true of many disciplines -- you learn how to think because that's what creates new knowledge. The process of what I know and what I think are inseparable.

But, let's look at a game example. A Wizard has run across some runes. He tries to recall what he knows about these runes. He does so. We're going to say that this Wizard has just invoked knowledge and did no thinking at all in matching what he sees to what he recalls? I mean, let's say that knowledge and thinking are separate. The Wizard recalls knowledge about runes. Cool. How does he apply this knowledge to read these runes without thinking? How can we say that the Wizard has matched up his recollection to his observation without ever once having to evaluate or consider if this rune looks more like this recalled one or that recalled one? Is there no interpretation between languages going on? I mean, should I have to tell the player what the runes mean but use that ancient language to do so, and let the player be interpreter to a different language? If I provide the translation, have I told the player which interpretation his character thinks it more or less right -- have I provided all the possible ways it could be interpreted and translated, or have I provided a clear translation that elides all of this thinking and application of knowledge?

And, so far, I've completely avoided actual scientific literature on memory, recall, and cognition. Going there really shows that these things are not separate.

Ok, I have to admit you pretty much lost me with this example. Are you saying that by giving the player an answer you have unavoidably dictated what their character thinks?

Maybe the distraction here is too much of a focus on what a character thinks, when really what matters is which of those thoughts get turned into action declarations. After telling the Wizard what the runes mean, are you further dictating or constraining action declarations? If not, fine. But if that's followed by, "Now that your character has that knowledge, there's no way she would do X" then we're not fine. It's really that simple.

Isn't your argument the same one as this that I've seen: "Making sense of visual input is really a function of the brain, and you can't perceive without thinking, so by telling the player they can see something, you're telling them what they think." Yeah, whatever. (But, for what it's worth, I really try to avoid saying "You see..." and instead try to use "There is...")

Sigh. The primary point of the argument that I am contesting is to claim that this one interpretation is actually better than the others -- it's more epistemologically sound, I believe was an early claim. That it makes more sense and has fewer disruptions to the other rules. That a new player would easily tease this interpretation out because it's the most clear one to have. All of these are wrong. It's not a better interpretation. It causes multiple disruptions to other rules. And new players would be hard pressed to pull this out of a single sentence on page 174 that isn't talking about action adjudication but is discussing what roleplaying can be (and it's not even complete there). If none of it matters, then why are these claims to superiority being made? And why is my attempt to show that they are not superior somehow more worthy of being told that it doesn't matter and I should let it go than the ones trying to say that their way is better? Hell, I agree it's better, I just don't agree with the argument that the rules make it so. They don't.

@Charlaquin may want to keep arguing the point about epistemological soundness, but I don't. I freely admit I'm choosing to give Rule 174 primacy. After that it's a question of how unambiguous and predictable is the implementation at the table. As I've argued before, there needs to be a dividing line between what the DM controls and what the player controls, and if it's not at the point of declaring actions, which emerge from character thoughts, then where is it?

And for that reason, I do find the rules make the most sense if we start with the Roleplaying Rule. It leads to a clear boundary between authority.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Would you agree that a player participating in good faith, would play their character as intimidated? Frightened, anxious to avoid provoking, that sort of thing?


Reflecting on your answer to the above, would you agree that a player participating in bad faith might ignore or break any rule? They wouldn't be much fun to play with, but then I'm not sure the player who refuses to allow an obviously extremely dangerous and threatening orc to seem threatening to them would be much fun to play with, either.


When you say each to their own, are you saying that you favour players who are participating in good faith ignoring the results of game mechanics? Or perhaps doing so just within the bounds of social interaction?

Say the players have formed an intention that the DM is not privy to, and that an NPC with strong Insight is highly interested in finding out. Are you saying that if on honest rolls the contest of NPC Insight to PC Deception should be ignored by the player, and they should lie to the DM about their intention? Is that each to their own?

I'm wary of answering any of this, because there seems to be an underlying assumption that some "answers" (that is, how the player responds to the environment) are better than others.

I find it entirely plausible that a truly terrifying, intimidating display of ferocity by the orc would be completely ineffectual against some people. Therefore, I'm happy to let the player decide how it affects their character. I just don't want to police that.

If I don't have fun with another player because of how they choose to roleplay...for whatever reason that is...then I will either avoid playing RPGs with them, or not, depending on circumstances. I have no interest in trying to invoke "rules" to get people to roleplay the way I think they should.

 

[Bill Zebub]

And exactly the same for an NPC being "intimidated", which might, to the DM, seem like the opposite.

Yes. The DM is under no obligation to have the NPC act intimidated.

However, I would say that when the player describes goal and approach, and the DM asks for a roll, they are kind of making a contract that means, "If you succeed, you will achieve the desired effect." If they have no intention of roleplaying the NPC as intimidated, it's bad faith to ask for the roll.

 

[clearstream]

@Charlaquin may want to keep arguing the point about epistemological soundness, but I don't. I freely admit I'm choosing to give Rule 174 primacy. After that it's a question of how unambiguous and predictable is the implementation at the table. As I've argued before, there needs to be a dividing line between what the DM controls and what the player controls, and if it's not at the point of declaring actions, which emerge from character thoughts, then where is it?

I like that you are making an express commitment. I think you mean to refer to PHB 185, not 174 though. Right?

A catch I think is that you and other posters have I think made it clear that the problem is insufficient specificity. You are okay - you have said - with effects that are specific enough. For example, you seem to be saying that the charm spell might be specific enough because it incorporates the charmed condition, and perhaps you are also fine with something like the dragon Frightening Presence trait.

So is it the case that were there similarly specific outcomes associated with the social interaction skills, you would also accept those? Say if Intimidate had an option the user could pick, which is to gain up to three truthful answers to a question they pose to their target?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I like that you are making an express commitment. I think you mean to refer to PHB 185, not 174 though. Right?

Am I? (Gets PHB). Oh, crap, yes. All this time I've been saying 174.

A catch I think is that you and other posters have I think made it clear that the problem is insufficient specificity. You are okay - you have said - with effects that are specific enough. For example, you seem to be saying that the charm spell might be specific enough because it incorporates the charmed condition, and perhaps you are also fine with something like the dragon Frightening Presence trait.

So is it the case that were there similarly specific outcomes associated with the social interaction skills, you would also accept those? Say if Intimidate had an option the user could pick, which is to gain up to three truthful answers to a question they pose to their target?

Yes. As I said up-thread, if the DM wants to create (even instantly, on the spot) a type of Orc with an "Intimidate" ability, I have zero problem with that.

However, I would hope that it would function like an ability (e.g. with me making a saving throw) and not use the goal-and-approach-task-resolution system, with I think is intended to be used for action declarations that don't have specific abilities.

 

[clearstream]

Yes. As I said up-thread, if the DM wants to create (even instantly, on the spot) a type of Orc with an "Intimidate" ability, I have zero problem with that.

However, I would hope that it would function like an ability (e.g. with me making a saving throw) and not use the goal-and-approach-task-resolution system, with I think is intended to be used for action declarations that don't have specific abilities.

You do see that this appears to be in contradiction with the primacy you give roleplay-as-defined though, right? You are okay with intrusion on what a character thinks, says, or does, just so long as it is tightly specified.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You do see that this appears to be in contradiction with the primacy you give roleplay-as-defined though, right? You are okay with intrusion on what a character thinks, says, or does, just so long as it is tightly specified.

Yup, I've said that many times.

And it's not a contradiction, it's specific > general.

As I've also said, the text isn't entirely clear on which rules are more general and more specific. So there's some interpretation.

The important thing to me is that it's predictable, and follows a structure. The reason I'm ok with the DM improvising is the Jerk Rule: if the DM abuses it they're not somebody I want to play with anyway. But I do want there to be some kind of logical framework. It's like locking your doors: it won't keep out determined criminals, but it does help to keep honest people honest.

 

[Lyxen]

However, I would say that when the player describes goal and approach, and the DM asks for a roll, they are kind of making a contract that means, "If you succeed, you will achieve the desired effect." If they have no intention of roleplaying the NPC as intimidated, it's bad faith to ask for the roll.

Not necessarily, first the roll is because there is uncertainty in the reaction, and second, the DM may (for example but there are tons of other ways to play this) roleplay the NPC as not visibly intimidated, but internally impressed (and will take this into account for future interactions), or extremely annoyed, or whatever. It might also depend how the intimidation is roleplayed, whether it's forceful, or more subtile, etc. So many circumstances, personalities, thankfully it's an open game.