D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Ironically, too, you're missing what is demonstrated. Your claim relies on the impossibility of uncertainty in 'player decides'. The requirement you raise (accepting for the sake of argument its validity) rests on whether uncertainty can subsist in player decisions.

The question isn't one of - are all mechanics equal - that is beside the point. The question is - as to the question of free will within the paradigm of the game, can there be uncertainty? Once we know there can be, we can say that the game paradigm endorses a DM calling for a check.

There can be uncertainty there, if a more specific rule establishes it. Ability checks are part of the general action resolution process, not a specific exception to it.

 

[clearstream]

Yea, because that’s how the rules describe the procedure. The DM calls for a roll to resolve the action if the act is uncertain. Uncertainty in the outcome is a prerequisite for a check to be called for to resolve that uncertainty.

A check should not be called for unless the outcome of the action is uncertain.

Other game mechanics that are more specific and contradict the roleplaying rule, yes. The rules for ability checks are a part of the general action resolution procedure, not a specific exception to the procedure like the rules for spellcasting are.

Yes, when a general rule is contradicted by a more specific rule, the more specific rule takes precedence. Again, ability checks are part of the general action resolution procedure, not an exception to it.

This shifts the argument.

1. Can I take it you now concede that in some instances, things that fall within the definition are indeed subject to uncertainty?
2. So now we need to deal with your additional contention that a DM is only justified in calling for a check when the instance in which they are doing so is an instance of the same type as in 1.

I'm trying to avoid describing those as special instances, but I am struggling. So what are the characteristics of the instances in 1.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can I take it you now concede that in some instances, things that fall within the definition are indeed subject to uncertainty?

I’ve never claimed otherwise! I’ve been invoking specific beats general throughout this entire discussion.

So now we need to deal with your additional contention that a DM is only justified in calling for a check when the instance in which they are doing so is an instance of the same type as in 1.
I'm trying to avoid describing those as special instances, but I am struggling. So what are the characteristics of the instances in 1.

Sorry, I’m having trouble parsing this. My contention is that the rules don’t support the DM in calling for a check when the outcome of an action is uncertain, and an action taken with the goal of making a PC take a certain action does not have an uncertain outcome. Some actions, such as spellcasting, have more specific rules governing their resolution procedures. If these rules contradict the roleplaying rule, then they can cause a PC to take a certain action.

 

[Maxperson]

You put it that we require the act to be uncertain prior to a check being called for. No act is uncertain if a check is not called for it. Any act for which a check is called, is uncertain.

All acts that the DM requires a roll for are uncertain prior to the check. The DM has to think, "Is this an automatic success or failure?" If the answer to that is no, then it is uncertain and he must then figure out of there is a meaningful consequence for failure. If the answer is yes, then it isn't and no check is called for. He considers that prior to the check, so the outcome must be uncertain prior.

In the case of PCs and social skills, the player is the one who determines whether the outcome is certain or not.

You're saying that to be working within the game rules a DM must justify their decision that a check is called for. What justifications are acceptable?

If it's going to override the players right to decide social skills, there are only two justifications that I can think of. 1) make a house rule that allows the DM to decide instead of the player, 2) use a specific beats general situation like Charm Person or Menacing Strike. Absent one of those two things, by RAW the player decides.

 

[Lyxen]

Actually, thinking about it further. You COULD consider the DM's declaration of actions on behalf of the NPCs to be environment description, which would place it inside of the play loop.

Only, the way I read it, it's not, since:

• The play loop only speaks about the environment, the players describing their actions, and the narration of the adventurers' actions.
• So it's only about the adventurer's actions, whereas the section that just follows says "In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."
• This clearly means that there are situations where the DM takes his turn(s) choosing and resolving actions, which are obviously the ones of his NPCs/Monsters, since the example is about combat.
• Furthermore, the next sentence clarifies it even further: "But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure."
• Which, in turn means that it is less structured than combat (where it is sequenced by turns), but also clearly means that the DM also chooses his actions, and this is not what is described in the play loop, as this one is (as seen above) limited to the adventurers' actions.

That being said, I think I perfectly understand @Swarmkeeper's position, and I agree that it makes a lot of sense in common adventuring environment where the PCs "have the initiative", not in the combat sense, but in the sense of them deciding what to do and where to go, and it makes sense as a description for a beginning DM.

It's also extremely player-centric, which is both a good and a bad thing, a good thing because the PCs should really be the heroes of their own story, but to me also a bad thing because I like my adventuring worlds to be more alive with NPCs than them just being "the environment".

Which is why I defend the position that the DM is also very much an actor in the play, and for me it's clearly supported even by the description in the PH, which is obviously player-centric since it's the introduction to the PH.

Which becomes a play loop within a play loop since we need to accommodate a player who wants their PC to take a reaction. The NPC/monster action becomes both step 2 with a DM taking on the "player" role as well as step 1 description of the "environment" (from the perspective of the player). Play loop inception? Play loop nesting dolls?

I don't think it's that complicated, and I think that in common adventuring situations, the play loop is clearly the way to go in particular for the exploration pillar, however, for combat, there is a different play loop, since everyone including the DM, is taking turns choosing actions, and when we get into more complex situations (I'm in particular thinking social pillar as an example, but not only), exactly as written in the PH, "most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure."

The play loop is a nice tool for the beginning DM or for the DM who wants absolute player-centricity, my only point is that the rules - totally rightly IMHO - already point out that it's not mandatory, as "play is fluid and flexible".

To rebound on a number of my discussions with @Maxperson, it's also a question of DM's style, maybe something to link to the "Sandbox <=> Linear Adventure" scale.

As for me, the NPCs are, even more than any element of the game world, what I enjoy as a DM, and even in a very sandboxy adventure, I have extremely strong and well defined NPCs, with their own goals, actions and intrigues. Of course, these adapt themselves somewhat to the actions of the PCs, but the other way around happens as well fairly frequently.

Are we good ?

 

[Lyxen]

If it's going to override the players right to decide social skills, there are only two justifications that I can think of. 1) make a house rule that allows the DM to decide instead of the player, 2) use a specific beats general situation like Charm Person or Menacing Strike. Absent one of those two things, by RAW the player decides.

While I agree in general, I would reiterate that it's more clever than this. Yes, the player decides, but based on the information that he has. And, to make it simple with the easiest example (there are many others but this one is by far the easiest both to understand and to rule since it's a contest with no fixed DC), the result of the deception check of an NPC trying to lie to a PC (and beat his insight, whether active or passive) and the associated description from the DM will certainly inflence the way the PC decides. It's not black and white.

 

[clearstream]

I’ve never claimed otherwise! I’ve been invoking specific beats general throughout this entire discussion.

Previously, it seemed you bestowed a kind of inviolable certainty on things falling within the definition of roleplaying. You argued that for a DM to be working within the rules required that DM to have a basis for their judgments as to uncertainty. It occurs to me to that for consistency you ought to believe that to be working within the rules a DM must also have a basis for their judgments as to stakes? Is that right? Or is there a lack of parity in those requirements?

Anyway, as it turns out, that certainty is often violated within the game rules. Thus, within the game paradigm, a DM is justified to say that things falling within the definition of roleplaying can be uncertain.

Sorry, I’m having trouble parsing this. My contention is that the rules don’t support the DM in calling for a check when the outcome of an action is uncertain, and an action taken with the goal of making a PC take a certain action does not have an uncertain outcome. Some actions, such as spellcasting, have more specific rules governing their resolution procedures. If these rules contradict the roleplaying rule, then they can cause a PC to take a certain action.

So far as I can tell, you now say that only some instances of uncertainty count. You appear to say that a DM is justified in judging an attempt uncertain only if it meets the criteria for those instances. And you list criteria which if I have them correctly largely amount to specificity. A specific enough rule can form an exception. I think this is a much better argument than the uncertainty argument, because for one thing it doesn't leave unexplained why we don't have a similar test for stakes.

In summary, it turns out that it wasn't the uncertainty that was at issue, but meeting the criteria to form an exception that was. That is why I said you have shifted the argument. It now seems that if only social skills would meet the criteria to be a suitable instance, then a DM will be justified in calling for a check.

This is where things get tangled. The RAW on calling for checks doesn't ask for a DM to consider specificity. I think I understand your reasoning here, but let's try and spell it out

1. To call for a check, there must a be a chance of failure
2. For all things falling within the definition of roleplay, there is no chance of failure
3. Some game mechanics introduce a chance of failure to things falling within the definition of roleplay
4. Luckily, they are exceptions to the putative general rule (actually a definition) and therefore avoid the test altogether

This is a nice piece of bootstrapping! Taking it on face value, we can simply say that the social skills are sufficiently specified. Who do the game rules then endorse? Neither. No matter how you may feel, there is nothing in the rules that supports your definition of 'specific enough.'

Specific Beats General​

This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.

Exceptions to the rules are often minor. For instance, many adventurers don’t have proficiency with longbows, but every wood elf does because of a racial trait. That trait creates a minor exception in the game. Other examples of rule-breaking are more conspicuous. For instance, an adventurer can’t normally pass through walls, but some spells make that possible. Magic accounts for most of the major exceptions to the rules.

We can make arguments from consequence in play, preference, what we understand to be norms, but you need to produce RAW additional to the above to support any claim that a game mechanic like deception is not specific enough.

Your Charisma (Deception) check determines whether you can convincingly hide the truth, either verbally or through your actions. This deception can encompass everything from misleading others through ambiguity to telling outright lies. Typical situations include trying to fast-talk a guard, con a merchant, earn money through gambling, pass yourself off in a disguise, dull someone's suspicions with false assurances, or maintain a straight face while telling a blatant lie.

Deception specifically calls for a check making it clear that a DM is justified in doing so. That particular forms an exception to any general rule.

When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision.

Again, the DM is encouraged to call for a check. The particular here overrides any general elsewhere.

When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk.

Rather than state the obvious, I'd prefer to highlight that including our conclusions in our premises will drive doubts that the particular of each social skill forms a good enough exception to the possible general rule.

Some questions worth asking are: Where is the RAW that tells us what is specific enough? Where, is the RAW that says it must be a spell to be specific enough? Or that it must reference a condition?

 

[clearstream]

@Aldarc I had a thought about Parley

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, they 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.

The tweak is the addition of the word, they. A hesitation is whether it is within norms for moves to give over a choice like that, however the reasoning is as follows.

If it is "pick 1" and between players, then we force the players into a dilemma with a risk of bad-feeling outcomes. The dilemma is, the resisting player on 7+ ought to prefer the first option, seeing as the second option lands in the same place, but without the XP. Therefore the pressing player ought to feel safe in picking the first option as it should suit both sides. However, they can then be 'betrayed' by the resisting player.

Or we say that what is really going on for the resisting player is this - do I prefer XP, or whatever it is I would reveal? Again, I don't feel this is the right bargain, and it shouldn't really be down to the pressing player to guess. You can see that there should (and likely will) be scope for negotiation. Therefore I suggest simply finessing that, and going straight to resisting player picks when it is not both.

 

[Lanefan]

Which becomes a play loop within a play loop since we need to accommodate a player who wants their PC to take a reaction. The NPC/monster action becomes both step 2 with a DM taking on the "player" role as well as step 1 description of the "environment" (from the perspective of the player). Play loop inception? Play loop nesting dolls?

It's an endless loop regardless. I remember being taught to avoid programming those......

 

[Bill Zebub]

I see a strong dependency on the social contract in play and the trust players are investing in their DM.

Which is ironic (assuming you really mean the opposite), because this whole "social skills can make players do things" is driven by exactly those low levels, but in the other direction. If people just trusted their players to roleplay, they wouldn't have to insist that NPC social skills have mechanical effects.