D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

You do not show what you hope to show. The RAW does not say the DM might if the target is an NPC, and cannot if the target is a PC.

It doesn’t need to. The might doesn’t contradict the rule that players decide what their characters think, feel, and do.

The RAW says the DM might. You are stitching target into the RAW where it does not exist. And PHB 7 acts so that the specific - DM might - overrides anything that could prevent it being effective.

The rules for ability checks don’t need to consider target. They consider possibility of failure and certainty. Other text elsewhere in the books advides us on how to determine certainty.

 

[clearstream]

It doesn’t need to. The might doesn’t contradict the rule that players decide what their characters think, feel, and do.

The rules for ability checks don’t need to consider target. They consider possibility of failure and certainty. Other text elsewhere in the books advides us on how to determine certainty.

It's probably better we set this aside at this point as we are getting nowhere, and I would like to give you the last word. As I said to @Aldarc, to have even reached this point we have a number of foundational points that haven't been conceded (other than for the sake of the argument.) In no particular order -

1. PHB 185 is a definition of roleplaying, not a rule. Not all text in the PHB is rules text.
2. Per RAW, it's up to the DM to decide what is certain and uncertain: there are no constraints on that.
3. The skills RAW explicitly sustains the possibility of calling for a check, without consideration for target.

I look forward to your peroration, and perhaps future lines of discussion in other threads will lead to reflections that dissolve the deadlock we reached here.

 

[Charlaquin]

Question. Would the roleplay rule, if acting the way you say, make it not true that the DM might (which isn't conditioned on target)?

No. When a character or monster takes an action that can fail and its outcome is uncertain, the DM calls for an ability check. They might call for an ability (skill) check, depending on the specifics of the action in question. Or, they might call for an ability check and the player of the character might ask if they can add their proficiency bonus for having a certain skill. The rules under Using Each Ability provide guidance as to what such actions the DM might call for an ability (skill) check to resolve, or what actions a player might ask the DM if they can add their proficiency bonus to.

By circular reasoning, you reinsert target to try and forestall DM might from being effective. That's ingenious, but also flawed. PHB 7 cannot be circumvented. If you think you have circumvented it, you are implementing it incorrectly. PHB 7 sustains the complete effect of the exception, so that it has the effect that is specified within the specific game element regardless of what may be elsewhere.

PHB 7 is irrelevant because there is no conflict between general and specific rules going on here that it must be invoked to resolve.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's probably better we set this aside at this point as we are getting nowhere, and I would like to give you the last word. As I said to @Aldarc, to have even reached this point we have a number of foundational points that haven't been conceded (other than for the sake of the argument.) In no particular order -

1. PHB 185 is a definition of roleplaying, not a rule. Not all text in the PHB is rules text.
2. Per RAW, it's up to the DM to decide what is certain and uncertain: there are no constraints on that.
3. The skills RAW explicitly sustains the possibility of calling for a check, without consideration for target.

I mean… Have you considered, rather than accepting these premises for the sake of argument, putting forth your interpretation of how these rules interact with each other? Because I think part of the reason we can’t get anywhere is that you’re trying to do an internal critique my and others’ position, seemingly without understanding it. I had to work pretty hard just to express to you that I don’t understand skills or abilities to be actions, and once you came to understand that, I had to do a similar amount of work to express to you that I understand the function of skills to be to determine whether or not a proficiency bonus can be added to a particular ability check being made. Your baseline understanding of the rules is so far removed from mine that most of what you think are internal critiques of my argument… aren’t.

I look forward to your peroration, and perhaps future lines of discussion in other threads will lead to reflections that dissolve the deadlock we reached here.

Likewise! Thanks for a good debate. I enjoyed the discussion, as always.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

How I run things depends on the game. For D&D I lean toward immersion and what might be labelled neo-trad, with some old school sympathies. I usually maintain an open-world, although recently got drawn into a protracted piece of dungeoneering (the Tomb of Nine Gods) which TBH I can't wait to be over. In my usual game, I have a world in mind and it is up to the players what direction the campaign goes within that world. An important function of game mechanics is to provide players fiat over the emerging narrative: so I avoid arbitrariness about what works or doesn't work. If it's in RAW then it works as it does in RAW. Or I make any change explicit (e.g. our rests are longer, in part to balance with the longer time arcs of an open-world campaign.) My weekly campaigns are long-running, and I always have more players than I would ideally like.

My interest in the possibility of symmetrical social skills arises from my interest in immersion (by which I mean world-immersion.) For me the most immersive world can only be created when its inhabitants are all on one footing - they all inhabit the same world, subject to the same magics, physics, metaphysics etc.

We're about two sessions from completing ToA. What I'm drafting in the background of this discussion is a take on symmetrical social skills for my coming campaign, which is set in a period of colonialism (where of course the players are on the side that is being overwhelmed and potentially disintegrated - culturally and economically - by colonisation.)

But perhaps you have something on your mind? Care to narrow your question?

I am specifically wondering how you adjudicate actions in 5e. Use the examples of 1) a PC trying to intimidate an NPC to make it do X; 2) an NPC trying to intimidate a PC to make them do Y.

 

[HammerMan]

At out table, I'm giving the player the stakes before they roll. They describe an intimidating action and their goal which, in this case, is to get the orc to run. I, as DM, determine that the outcome will be uncertain and tell the player what happens on a success and what happens on a failure. The success state should be somewhat related to what the player wanted their PC to accomplish. If it is something completely different b/c you, as DM, don't think their goal is possible, then you might as well say that the outcome is certain and declare that the action fails. The orc punching the fighter on a successful ability check for the fighter is... not something I would pull on a player. That is most definitely not a success.

we are back to ripping the bar off the door doesn't open the door. saying what your PC/NPC does and how they want to do it (even if in short hand by naming game mechanic like a skill) is still what you do... the world reacts to you and you react to the world.
you can tell your PCs before the roll what will or wont happen, that is cool, but not RAW, (I don't even disagree, I would be cool with you saying "Okay roll, but if you success or fail you don't get to dictate what the orc does in responce")
and as far as it being a 'not success' aka a failure, not the failure would be the orc laughing.

See above - you called for roll even though you, as DM, knew the fighter could not accomplish their goal. This seems like cognitive dissonance to me.

they CAN succeed though, they can intimidate the orc. what they can not do is then because he is intimidated take control and dictate what he does when intimidated.

What does "the PC determined that the effect was out of line" mean? I'm not picking up on your short hand here.

I copy pasted the scenario from above... so if the orc intimidates the player "to make him run" all the orc can do is intimadate or not intimidate, the PC then has the same options the DM did above... so laugh/punch are both possible outcomes, so is cry for help, so is run away, so is draw your weapon, so is cast a spell, the orc intimidating you does not mind control you... this is NOT suggestion.

And, just a side comment here, while were on the topic. Several of us have tried to understand your playstyle. Yet I don't see a similar effort on your end. Do you understand our playstyle at all?

I not only understand it, I played that way in 2e and 23e. I even understand how you read the rules, I just disagree with it. I can understand it though.

I'm not into adjudicating by feel when it comes to rolling dice. The players deserve to know what means what before getting into situations that could be bad for their PC.

I mean they should have atleast all the information there character would have...maybe a bit more. I think the sphere of anniliation in the demon mouth dungeon entrence would be jerk move in a random dungeon...but if they know they are about to play a meat grinder adventure with traps and tricks it is fair (even if it isn't what i would do...)

If they still go for it, that's on them. If I don't give the stakes and the PC suffers b/c of how I "read" a roll result in the moment, that potentially leads to "gotcha" situations - inadvertent or otherwise.

and with clear communication and understanding of your players, and you trusting them and them trusting you, and this sort of thing being a corner case... gotchas can be fun (in small doses) i undterstand that the same way we don't keep secrets some DMs don't have the world respond, I also understand how to play in both... I dislike games with every roll being a gotcha, but I also dislike games where I havbe to explain how my character does something he can do that I can nott...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I not only understand it, I played that way in 2e and 23e. I even understand how you read the rules, I just disagree with it. I can understand it though.

Only we’re playing 5e so it strikes me that you most likely do not understand when we describe our playstyle. Maybe someone else who plays similarly to me who also played 2e & 3e can better comment, though.

and with clear communication and understanding of your players, and you trusting them and them trusting you, and this sort of thing being a corner case... gotchas can be fun (in small doses) i undterstand that the same way we don't keep secrets some DMs don't have the world respond, I also understand how to play in both... I dislike games with every roll being a gotcha, but I also dislike games where I havbe to explain how my character does something he can do that I can nott...

This is not really an issue of trust. It’s an issue of consistency in adjudication. The PC getting punched by a creature they’ve just intimidated (as decided by an ability check that beat the stated DC) is a complete non-sequitur by the DM. The outcome of the roll, IMO, should be consistent with the PC’s goal if success happens. In combat, do you have an enemy kick a PC in the shins when the player rolls a hit with an attack for that PC? Why do something similar when a PC succeeds at intimidating an enemy in a social situation? You see the issue here?

And if you are implying that a player ever needs to explain an action that their PC could do but they as a player could not, you still are not grokking how my table plays (or others here that play similarly).

 

[HammerMan]

Only we’re playing 5e so it strikes me that you most likely do not understand when we describe our playstyle.

I do understand (@iserith explained his style in super detail to the point I could shut my eyes and see it as well if not better then any novel i have ever read) I was saying it was a style I used in older editions

Maybe someone else who plays similarly to me who also played 2e & 3e can better comment, though.

I mean in 2e you kinda have to play your way (more or less) because skills didn't exist social or otherwise. You did have a charisma thing called reaction adjustment, but most DMs I know or even heard of ditched those or modified them heavily.

This is not really an issue of trust. It’s an issue of consistency in adjudication.

I am consistent. My players know my games and what to expect. My other DMs (who happen to also be my players) also are consistent. I wont talk as a DM but as a player, I would trust that my DMs are adjudicating fairly and for a fun game... even if that means ever so often a gotcha.

the trust is that when gotcha moments come up it will lead to fun (or at least will be intended as such) and the game will not be full of them.

The PC getting punched by a creature they’ve just intimidated (as decided by an ability check that beat the stated DC) is a complete non-sequitur by the DM.

I disagree. It is the consequence to an action the player described. The action did not intended for that consequence but like in the real world game chocies sometimes with BOTH intended and unintended consequences.

The outcome of the roll, IMO, should be consistent with the PC’s goal if success happens. In combat, do you have an enemy kick a PC in the shins when the player rolls a hit with an attack for that PC?

I mean, if they have a reaction that allows it. I don't see where action economy comes into the social skill debate though...

Why do something similar when a PC succeeds at intimidating an enemy in a social situation? You see the issue here?

no it seems an odd situation... I mean if we were in initiative I wouldn't let the orc punch OUTSIDE of turn order if that is what you mean, but timing of events has not been part of the discussion up until now as far as I know.

however Imagine I did have a monk NPC who had "reaction: when hit in combat use reaction to grab target and flip them over there hip. Target makes a Str save DCXX when they hit monk or land prone in open square adjacent to monk" (Never have but that actually seems pretty cool might work shop that a bit and try it) and a PC had not seen it in use yet, and attacked the monk I for sure would use it... and that PC would be shocked but realize maybe ranged is better for this monster (and tbf I would not put something like deflect missiles with this) or even just makeing sure that the reaction gets used (only can take 1)

OR

if a new player who had never read a D&D book and didn't go through the whole PHB before making there human fighter ran across a teifling warlock, hellish rebuke is a gotcha and a shocking one at that (fire not shock i guess)

And if you are implying that a player ever needs to explain an action that their PC could do but they as a player could not, you still are not grokking how my table plays (or others here that play similarly).

Oh no... @iserith has been clear, if I were at his table and I said "I want to use my theives tools to pick the lock" that would not be enough I need to describe it... or the better example "I search the desk" would lead to "How do you search the desk?"
I can't pick a lock, I in real world am for sure not trained in perception or investigation (and I'm not betting on a high INT or WIS)

 

[iserith]

Oh no... @iserith has been clear, if I were at his table and I said "I want to use my theives tools to pick the lock" that would not be enough I need to describe it... or the better example "I search the desk" would lead to "How do you search the desk?"
I can't pick a lock, I in real world am for sure not trained in perception or investigation (and I'm not betting on a high INT or WIS)

Not correct on the thieves' tools. That is a sufficient statement of goal and approach to adjudicate. "I try to pick the lock with my thieves tools" would be better, since "I want" is just a statement of desire rather than action, but that really depends on the shared understanding of the context at the table.

 

[HammerMan]

Also I have never known any Player to balk at the reading I have as a DM (I mean in my current group(s) we are all pretty equal as DMIng and playing) and as a player I have never felt this reading impacts my ability to play my character at all.