D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

The charm person spell does, by specifying that the target views the caster as a friendly acquaintance. It specifically magicks the target into liking the caster. It doesn't make the target slavishly devoted to the caster, or make the target view the caster as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected (as per the dryad's charm), but it does contradict the player's choice: the player can't decide that the caster is an unfriendly or even neutral acquaintance.

When combined with the actual charmed condition (advantage on ability checks to interact socially with the charmed creature), it means that not only is the target forced to see the caster as a friendly person, they will be easily led into believing anything the target says.

Yeah, I gotta side with you on this one.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Honestly, RAW, the play loop is a very weak argument, but in actual play it's even worse. Are you telling me that you always respect the play loop and that any action in the game is only initiated by the PCs ? Come on...

Truthfully, I don’t. It’s because I’m still having a hard time un-learning habits from previous edition. And some of the players in my group don’t even try to in-learn those lessons, so they’ll say “I’ll make an Investigation check…” while reaching for their dice, and half the time I let it slide.

But when I’m reflecting and self-critiquing after the session, I’ll try to think about how I could have done it better, and I improve a little each time.

 

[Lyxen]

Truthfully, I don’t. It’s because I’m still having a hard time in-learning habits from previous edition. And some of the players in my group don’t even try to in-learn those lessons, so they’ll say “I’ll make an Investigation check…” while reaching for their dice, and half the time I let it slide.

I don't see what this has to do with the play loop at all. I get what you are saying, and we fought against that too at start, and I agree that there is a difference between the players describing what they do and the actual technical resolution, if any, but it's not what we are discussing here.

But when I’m reflecting and self-critiquing after the session, I’ll try to think about how I could have done it better, and I improve a little each time.

Again, good for you, but this has nothing to do with the play loop. The RAW says: "the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions." It's not only the players describing their actions and the DM narrating the results of the adventurer's action. The DM also chooses actions for his Monsters/NPCs (and possibly even for the world in general).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

First, the RAW tell you it's not the case, I have given you the exact quote that proves that the DM is choosing actions as well as the players.

That RAW you quote is part of the play loop saying that combat is turn based. That doesn't make it not part of the play loop. So, yeah, I disagree with your assertion.

Second, it's obviously not true, when it's a monster/NPC's turn he is not acting due to an action from the PC, and it's not just narration coming from the DM.

Not so "obviously". When the DM describes the actions of a monster/NPC, they are describing the environment. Over to the player(s) - granted ever so briefly - to see if they have anything they can do in response - and then the NPC/monster's (and PC's reaction, if there was one) are resolved. Back to step 1.

Are you saying that is not happening?

Before the player's turn, the DM can narrate the state of the combat (step 1) then ask the player what they want to do. The player describes what they want their PC to do (step 2) and then the actions are adjudicated (step 3).

Structure does not override the play loop. Although it can certainly speed it up. It's still happening and I actually find it helpful to think of it that way.

Quickly narrating the state of the environment before every player's turn has become a standard operating procedure for me as DM over the last year and a half or so, and our game has benefitted from it.

This is a very narrow reading of the loop which is not only invalidated by the RAW I have given you, but is also absurd when considering the fact that step 3 only describes the result of the adventurer's actions, whereas in combat, it's as much the result of the Monsters/NPCs actions as well as the Adventurers.

It's actually a broader reading of the loop. It is not invalidated, as I've shown above. It is not "absurd", either - and I'd ask you to tone it down a bit please. You can disagree without being dismissive.

 

[Charlaquin]

Truthfully, I don’t. It’s because I’m still having a hard time in-learning habits from previous edition. And some of the players in my group don’t even try to in-learn those lessons, so they’ll say “I’ll make an Investigation check…” while reaching for their dice, and half the time I let it slide.

But when I’m reflecting and self-critiquing after the session, I’ll try to think about how I could have done it better, and I improve a little each time.

My advice for when this kind of thing happens is to assume good faith, acknowledge what the player is expressing to you, and then express what you still need from them. For example, “I’m hearing that you want to deduce something about the environment, and that you think your proficiency in Investigation will help you succeed in achieving your goal if you need to make a check. I’m not clear on what you hope to deduce or what your character is doing to try and achieve that goal. Could you elaborate on that a bit more?”

 

[Bill Zebub]

You can disagree without being dismissive.

I agree with you on many things, but this particular assertion defies the textual evidence.

 

[Maxperson]

This makes me think - are there any examples of Persuasion or Intimidate being made as opposed rolls or against a passive score? What is Intimidate opposed by? (Not what do we think it should be opposed to - but what to the rules say?).

Because the default seems to be that ability checks are made against DC unless there are specific rolls governing otherwise. And rolls that influence PCs are never made against DCs.

I run it and I've seen other DMs run it at 10+CR as the DC.

 

[Lyxen]

That RAW you quote is part of the play loop saying that combat is turn based. That doesn't make it not part of the play loop. So, yeah, I disagree with your assertion.

No, it does not, it says: "In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

So no, not only combat.

Not so "obviously". When the DM describes the actions of a monster/NPC, they are describing the environment.

No, sorry, this is not the environment, this is the example of the environment: "how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on."

Over to the player(s) - granted ever so briefly - to see if they have anything they can do in response - and then the NPC/monster's (and PC's reaction, if there was one) are resolved. Back to step 1.

Are you saying that is not happening?

No, because actions by other people are not "the environment", this is a bizarre understanding of the term.

Before the player's turn, the DM can narrate the state of the combat (step 1) then ask the player what they want to do. The player describes what they want their PC to do (step 2) and then the actions are adjudicated (step 3).

No, this is not what the RAW says, once more: "In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."

It clearly shows that while in some situations the PCs actions are what matters and is resolved, in others, and in particular combat, the actions choosing and description also obviously concerns NPCs and Monsters, chosen by the DM.

Structure does not override the play loop. Although it can certainly speed it up. It's still happening and I actually find it helpful to think of it that way.

That might be your way to consider it, but it's not what the RAW says.

Quickly narrating the state of the environment before every player's turn has become a standard operating procedure for me as DM over the last year and a half or so, and our game has benefitted from it.

As you say "the state of the environment". Now, personally, I prefer a more active game where NPCs take actions (chosen by the DM) independently of what the PCs do. And this is clearly supported and encouraged by RAW, particularly in combat but not only.

It's actually a broader reading of the loop.

It's also a very selective reading of the loop, a very unusual reading of what an environment means, and specifically not reading sentences in the same section which prove without doubt that the PCs are not the only ones choosing actions, and not only in combat.

 

[Maxperson]

The charm person spell does, by specifying that the target views the caster as a friendly acquaintance. It specifically magicks the target into liking the caster. It doesn't make the target slavishly devoted to the caster, or make the target view the caster as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected (as per the dryad's charm), but it does contradict the player's choice: the player can't decide that the caster is an unfriendly or even neutral acquaintance.

When combined with the actual charmed condition (advantage on ability checks to interact socially with the charmed creature), it means that not only is the target forced to see the caster as a friendly person, they will be easily led into believing anything the target says.

Faolyn, first those comment were regarding social skills and social interactions. Second, Charm Person does as it is an example of specific beats general. Nobody has argued that specific cases like spells or class abilities don't work. Third, it doesn't mean that they will easily be led into believe anything the caster says. They only get advantage on rolls, but if there's never a roll(the outcome isn't in doubt), then they fail. You could almost certainly convince the charmed merchant to give you 10% off, but you would fail if you wanted him to give you stuff for free.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I gotta side with you on this one.

Me too

She quoted one of my posts talking about skills and social interactions, not Charm.