D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

Wait wait wait….are you suggesting that skills are sufficiently specific to override the general if the action fits one of the examples given in the text, but not otherwise?

So the DM should consider the action, decide if a skill applies, then consult the text, and if it matches one of those examples the player loses the protection of the roleplaying rule, but otherwise they retain it?

Yes. For pages they've been arguing that the simple lack of text preventing such an action constitutes specific permission to do so and overrides the general rule give the players the ability to decide how their characters think, feel and act. I've been flabbergasted by that argument for a long time now.

 

[Aldarc]

I don’t actually care how other people run their games. If it’s fun for them, they’re more than welcome to play however they want to. There are, however, a lot of very commonly reported issues people have with the game that my approach neatly avoids. The way I see it is, often people try to run D&D 5e more or less like they did some other edition, and that ends up having consequences unforeseen by the design, which they then rely on house rules to fix (often causing more unforeseen consequences). And, again, there’s nothing at all wrong with that if it’s fun for them and their players. I’m not trying to tell anyone how they should play the game, I’m just trying to promote understanding of the rules as they are, and to point out places where these commonly reported issues people experience when playing the game don’t really arise when played as written.

As you read and interpret them...

 

[Charlaquin]

As you read and interpret them...

Sure

 

[iserith]

okay then explain how you determine a non plot relevant monster and how well they present in ANY social situation on the fly when your players throw you a curve ball?

Orc/intimidate is the easiest in my mind, but pick any monster in MM1, how do you decide on the fly how to play them?

As it happens I use a lot of random or wandering monsters in many of my games. In some games, I have a macro that determines if they are friendly, indifferent, or hostile, which sets the starting condition to then use the rules for social interaction challenges in the DMG, if the PCs decide to engage with the monster/NPC that way.

In other games, I just decide based on the situation and the lore provided in the Monster Manual. An aarakocra, therefore, might encounter the PCs and ask them if they know anything about where to find one of the shards from the Rod of Seven Parts or if they know of any cults of Elemental Evil operating in the area. Then we can see where the conversation goes from there. Easy.

At no time do I roll d20+Intimidate to determine how to describe a monster. I just describe them and ask "What do you do?"

they do we have showed you, but it just doesn't count what you don't like.

I neither like nor dislike anything under discussion in this thread. If the rules told me to roll to see how intimidating the orc is before describing it to the players, I would do that. But they don't, so I don't.

 

[HammerMan]

People misinterpret things and keep doing so. Misinterpretations don't become valid interpretations just because the people doing it believe that they are correct.

if it was a mistake would not 50+ pages have corrected it?

If the outcome is in doubt and there is a meaningful consequence for failure, then an ability check is called for.

So if I describe the orc engaging in a great display of intimidation, the next step is for the player to decide success, failure or doubt. If the player says, "The orc's display makes me a bit nervous, but I cannot be cowed," then the intimidation has failed. If the player says, "Holy cow. I don't want to mess with that guy. I turn around and run back into the forest and try to get away, " the intimidation has succeeded. If the player says, "That's a really impressive display, I'm really not sure if I would stay or run," then a roll is called for because the outcome is in doubt and there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

that is what I have been saying for 30-40 pages...

You joined a long time ago, but your post numbers indicate that you're fairly new to posting things and participation. So you might not be aware that this is the umpteenth thread on this. I'm not going to go back and dig through at LEAST a dozen threads in order to prove to you that you only speak for yourself and not everyone.

oh I have been here even longer then that, I had an account I lost on an old email (not many posts on that either) and really go months sometimes years without posting.
You aren't going though those dozen because you know this is not convincing anyone

You still haven't responded to the fact that your interpretation turns social skills into a form of mind control that is superior to the Suggestion spell.

it does not

Do you really think the designers intended social skills to be more powerful than a 2nd level spell designed to control minds?

no, becuse I don't allow NPCs or PCs to dictate the outcome. I have said this before, OTHERS are making it suggestion not I

 

[iserith]

Others have read the text and disagree. the creators have said many times it is up to our interpretations. so why do YOU not accept our interpretation to be as valid as yours?

Asked and answered. More interesting to me is why you seem to care about me validating your interpretation. I've already said however you choose to play is fine by me. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

I care becuse it is a way of shutting down the conversation. When someone asks about Charisma Skills being used on PC vs PC or NPC vs PC you come in and declair the 'correct' answer and when others say they see it diffrent, instead of saying "Here is why I do X Y and Z and here are the pros and cons" you just try to shut it down calling us out as having house rules.

it isn't a house rule (although I have gne into many in this and other threads)

Saying what the rules say or pointing out house rules doesn't shut down conversation. I don't have have that kind of power. As evidence of this assertion, please see the preceding 72 pages of this very thread and all the ones that follow.

 

[Maxperson]

it does they way I and others read it

How? If the player decides it fails, how does it come into play?

 

[clearstream]

No, they allow the character proficient with them to add their proficiency bonus to ability checks made to resolve actions with the goals listed under them (such as trying to pry information from a prisoner). Remember, skills are not actions, they are a source of bonuses.

Hah! So as I predicted, you are denying skills status as game elements that can form specifics that beat generals. So let's look at that. Here is a hypothetical game structure

S(s1, s2...)

Let's say S is our game's Spellcasting system - a set of connected processes. As regulated by the system, we have s1 which is a spell-instance. A few pages of rules state S, our Spellcasting system, and some parameters, definitions, and cases state s1, our spell.

Now, can s1 be a specfic game element that beats a general rule? That can be answered intuitively, and then according to what 5th ed RAW says about it. I'm curious as to your thoughts on both.

 

[clearstream]

Yes. For pages they've been arguing that the simple lack of text preventing such an action constitutes specific permission to do so and overrides the general rule give the players the ability to decide how their characters think, feel and act. I've been flabbergasted by that argument for a long time now.

I speak only of what the RAW contains. Please enjoy your flabbergastication.

 

[Maxperson]

if it was a mistake would not 50+ pages have corrected it?

If 33+ years of forum discussions are any indication, no.

that is what I have been saying for 30-40 pages...

So I'm mistaken when I read multiple posts by you indicating that you roll to see how well the orc performed his intimidation? Because I've seen multiple posts by you indicating that if the orc rolled a 3, it was a laughable attempt, but if he rolled a 22 it was a very good one. That's very different from what I just wrote.

oh I have been here even longer then that, I had an account I lost on an old email (not many posts on that either) and really go months sometimes years without posting.
You aren't going though those dozen because you know this is not convincing anyone

No. I'm reasonably certain some people have been swayed by @iserith's position in the past. At the very least he got me looking to see if there was a meaningful consequence for failure before calling for a roll. I wasn't doing that initially.

it does not

It does.

If it can make the PC have to change what it thinks, feels or does, it is in fact much stronger than the suggestion spell. Can social skills make a PC intimidated(alter what it thinks or feels)? Can social skills persuade a PC to do something that the player doesn't want the PC to do(alter what the PC thinks, feels and does)?