D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

What a bizarre question. Characters…NPC or otherwise…don’t “get rolls”. Humans sometimes roll dice to see what their characters are able to do.

Except we almost never refer to humans at the table. If player Jenny is playing character Carantha it's nearly always "Carantha, roll me a d20" rather than "Jenny, roll me a d20"; and so I've just got used to shorthanding it that the character gets the roll rather than the player.

 

[Bill Zebub]

d

Except we almost never refer to humans at the table. If player Jenny is playing character Carantha it's nearly always "Carantha, roll me a d20" rather than "Jenny, roll me a d20"; and so I've just got used to shorthanding it that the character gets the roll rather than the player.

Yes. And, as noted previously, I was being a little disingenuous there (apologies for that) because my point was really that the human who "gets to roll" in the case of an NPC is the same human who arbitrates: the DM in both cases. Which changes the dynamic considerably from one in which a player is asking permission of the referee.

And, even then, the larger point is that you keep describing RPGs as if PCs and NPCs are perfectly symmetric, which seems to be your preference and is a perfectly fine preference, but is simply not the case in 5e.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I hoped you could see that I am debating a position I believe might have valuable ramifications. It's an investigation, not a commitment to that position.

 

[clearstream]

And, even then, the larger point is that you keep describing RPGs as if PCs and NPCs are perfectly symmetric, which seems to be your preference and is a perfectly fine preference, but is simply not the case in 5e.

RAI certainly. The RAW leaves it open.

 

[Bill Zebub]

RAI certainly. The RAW leaves it open.

It is clear that NPCs don't follow PC character generation rules, so it's not really a tenable position that they are exactly equal. One could still argue that in play they follow the same rules for resolution of action declarations, but doing so you still have to start from a place of symmetry being broken.

 

[Lanefan]

It is clear that NPCs don't follow PC character generation rules,

That one at least would be easy-as-dirt to fix by houserule.

so it's not really a tenable position that they are exactly equal. One could still argue that in play they follow the same rules for resolution of action declarations, but doing so you still have to start from a place of symmetry being broken.

 

[clearstream]

It is clear that NPCs don't follow PC character generation rules, so it's not really a tenable position that they are exactly equal. One could still argue that they follow the same rules, but doing so you still have to start from a place of symmetry being broken.

I agree with that. It's not symmetric in all respects. I believe it is the presence of rules and guidance for PC dealings with NPCs that leads many to jump to a conclusion that RAW can't possibly support NPCs dealings with PCs!

 

[Aldarc]

@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.

It may help if you have the current write-up for Persuade (vs. PCs):

PERSUADE (vs. PCs)
When you press or entice a PC and they resist, ask their player: "Could I possibly get you to do this, yes or no?" If the answer is "No," let it drop.

If the answer is "Yes," you can roll +CHA: on a 10+, they mark XP if they do what you want, and if they don't, they must reveal how you could convince them; on a 7-9, they mark XP if they do what you want (but can refuse or make a counter-offer if they like).

 

[Bill Zebub]

I agree with that. It's not symmetric in all respects. I believe it is the presence of rules and guidance for PC dealings with NPCs that leads many to jump to a conclusion that RAW can't possibly support NPCs dealings with PCs!

Well it's a clue as to RAI that in social interaction rules they are always described as PCs influencing NPCs.

 

[Lyxen]

It is clear that NPCs don't follow PC character generation rules, so it's not really a tenable position that they are exactly equal. One could still argue that in play they follow the same rules for resolution of action declarations, but doing so you still have to start from a place of symmetry being broken.

NPCs could follow character generation rules, I don't think that there is any rule anywhere that precludes that. It's just that for me (and for the designers, apparently), it's simply too complicated and unneeded for most cases/situations. And another way to look at it is that NPCs are not limited by character creation rules and limitations.

But in any case, in terms of action resolution, there is only one set of mechanics in the game, which is used by all creatures, whether it's combat actions (although once more the NPCs have the advantage as they can get legendary and lair and mythic actions), or the use of ability scores: "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge."

So, once more, seeing that the rules unify everything especially in terms of actions, I will say once more the burden of proving that it's dissimilar falls on those who think it, as nowhere in the rules does it say it is AFAIK.