D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Hriston]

From Stonetop:

It also comes with a list of ideas for things that may convince a NPC. Also, on a 6- result (2d6 + Attribute), the GM makes what's called a "hard move," which adds some sort of major complication or pressure on the situation. (In case you were curious about why 6- wasn't included.)

Okay, so is there no way in this system to influence an NPC to do something without the GM's agreement or imposing conditions? If not, I would be a little surprised, but like I said, I'm completely ignorant when it comes to PbtA.

 

[Hriston]

Yeah, that’s Stonetop though. @Hriston can correct me if I’m wrong but I believe they were talking about D&D 5e.

Well, we we're talking about both, but in the post you quoted, @Aldarc was responding to a question I was asking about the Persuade (vs. NPC) move in Stonetop.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, we we're talking about both, but in the post you quoted, @Aldarc was responding to a question I was asking about the Persuade (vs. NPC) move in Stonetop.

Oh, my mistake then. Carry on.

 

[Hriston]

Oh, my mistake then. Carry on.

No worries. Sorry that it wasn't clear which game I was talking about.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I do recall some past conversations that seemed to suggest that descriptions of scenery or the environment in some old adventures or modules was so timid out of fear of suggesting anything that the characters may think about any of it. If what you say is true, then there may be some truth to that.

?

I just meant that posters too frequently use a reductio ad absurdam argument, that if you can’t tell players what their characters think then you can’t describe the environment. Because sensory input affects the nervous system, etc.

 

[Charlaquin]

I just meant that posters too frequently use a reductio ad absurdam argument, that if you can’t tell players what their characters think then you can’t describe the environment. Because sensory input affects the nervous system, etc.

When the question is “where does it end,” the answer is always “fing somewhere.”

 

[Lanefan]

There are even rules (I forget if they’re in the DMG or the MM because I never use them) for adding class levels to monsters. However, monsters are still built differently than PCs in a few fundamental ways, the most obvious being the rules for calculating their hit points and hit dice.

Sure, no problem with that. Non-PC-playable monsters can be whatever they want as long as they're consistent with themselves.

It's when a PC and an NPC of the same playable species (e.g. two Elves, or two Gnomes, etc.) are built differently that problems can and do arise with setting consistency: if a PC can be it or do it then an NPC should be able to also, and vice-versa.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure, no problem with that. Non-PC-playable monsters can be whatever they want as long as they're consistent with themselves.

It's when a PC and an NPC of the same playable species (e.g. two Elves, or two Gnomes, etc.) are built differently that problems can and do arise with setting consistency: if a PC can be it or do it then an NPC should be able to also, and vice-versa.

I haven’t found asymmetry there to cause meaningful gameplay issues. Just seems like an aesthetic preference to me, and a perfectly valid one, but not one I share.

 

[Lanefan]

Funny that you don't even reference the passage on 185, which is the root of all of this.

If you start trying to prove basic geometry theorems (about parallel lines, sum of angles in a triangle, etc.) it will also become circular. You need a starting point, a basic axiom that you assume but can not prove.

The "PC's make their own decisions" theorem is built upon the text of page 185*. If you ignore it, you're going to have a hard time reconstructing the proof.

But I think you know that.

*Which, admittedly, reinforces my own deeply held beliefs.

There's nothing at all wrong with "The PCs make their own decisions". Bravo. Preach it!

What makes me shake my head is that some of the same people pushing that stance are also pushing for PCs to retain the ability to use social skills/abilities to influence (if not outright force) NPCs' decisions, via the DM calling for a roll. To me this just sounds like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

If "the PCs make their own decisions" is true then "the NPCs make their own decisions" should also be true. No rolling required unless someone - player or DM - wants to do a non-binding self-informative roll if truly uncertain how their character(s) would react.

Or (the much-worse option):

If the NPCs can be mechanically influenced/forced into certain decisions then the same should apply to PCs.

 

[Faolyn]

A silly thought (obviously one that would need to be discussed with and agreed to by the players): Give PCs an "Intimidated" score. It would be something like 10 + PB + the modifier of their class' main stat, so a wizard would use Int, a fighter would use Strength*, etc. You could make it be 12 or 15 or even higher instead of 10; I'm just spitballing here.

This is the DC an NPC would need to beat in order to intimidate the PC. If the PC has a trait that gives them advantage on saves against being frightened, the NPC rolls at disad.

Then, the PC should RP being intimidated. This doesn't mean that they have to cower or agree to whatever the intimidator is demanding--it's perfectly logical for an intimidated person to lash out in some way. But at least this should prevent PCs from being totally blase about NPCs.

(I came up with this idea a moment ago. I clearly haven't playtested it.)