D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

That is not supported by the rules in my view. Fine if you want to play that way, and I hope that you and your players have fun doing that, even if it sometimes requires you to go back and clarify what the character is doing (as you said may happen from time to time). By having reasonable specificity in my games, I don't have to do that, ever, and it's easy to see what success and failure look like, what ability check and skill or tool proficiency applies, and what the DC is. A lot of people say that DMing is hard. Not me and part of that is because my players aren't making it harder than it needs to be.

See again, you start off with the right of it, you don't agree with me... cool I don't care if you ever do.
Then you state the drawback of my way (ever so often a rewind or question is asked) skipping over that your way requires a templet of sentence structure that all players must always follow, and never use context to fill in a blank... then you end it by talking about how hard it is to DM (implying anyway other then your one true best reading of the rule is the cause) and how you don't find it hard...

the problem is your whole statement can be reworded to be true for me.


about YOUR rule

That is not supported by the rules in my view. Fine if you want to play that way, and I hope that you and your players have fun doing that, even if it sometimes requires you to go back and clarify what the character is doing (or rephrasing to fit your pattern). By useing reasonable context in my games, I don't have to do that, ever, and it's easy to see what success and failure look like, what ability check and skill or tool proficiency applies, and what the DC is. A lot of people say that DMing is hard. Not me and part of that is because my players aren't making it harder than it needs to be.

 

[Charlaquin]

Further, I ruthlessly interrogate every single thing I am doing in the game when I learn a new game. Is this thing I'm doing supported by the rules of this game? Or is this something I'm doing because another game suggests I do that? If I find it's not supported, then it's got to go. Try running Dungeon World, for example, without getting rid or at least compartmentalizing how to run D&D 4e or 5e. The game will fight you every step of the way and absolutely suck. (I should note that trying to figure out Dungeon World while mostly playing D&D 4e back in 2011-2012 (?) also further refined how I try to unlearn games and learn new ones.)

Interestingly, I don’t think Dungeon World is that far of a walk from 5e. The conversation of the game in DW is similar to the pattern of play in 5e, and the Defy Danger move is quite similar to using an ability check to resolve an action that has a consequence for failure. They’re definitely very different games, and one does well to interpret them as such, but the fundamental structures do have a lot in common.

 

[Charlaquin]

I actually like you posting your opinion. It allows me to refine my own points and allows other people to see all the ways you distort things which indirectly makes you and, by association, your position look worse. In a debate, that helps offset all the ways I make myself and my position look worse.

Spoken like a skilled rhetorician.

 

[iserith]

See again, you start off with the right of it, you don't agree with me... cool I don't care if you ever do.
Then you state the drawback of my way (ever so often a rewind or question is asked) skipping over that your way requires a templet of sentence structure that all players must always follow, and never use context to fill in a blank... then you end it by talking about how hard it is to DM (implying anyway other then your one true best reading of the rule is the cause) and how you don't find it hard...

the problem is your whole statement can be reworded to be true for me.


about YOUR rule

That is not supported by the rules in my view. Fine if you want to play that way, and I hope that you and your players have fun doing that, even if it sometimes requires you to go back and clarify what the character is doing (or rephrasing to fit your pattern). By useing reasonable context in my games, I don't have to do that, ever, and it's easy to see what success and failure look like, what ability check and skill or tool proficiency applies, and what the DC is. A lot of people say that DMing is hard. Not me and part of that is because my players aren't making it harder than it needs to be.

That's good, I'm glad you're having no issues, despite having to go back and ask clarifying questions or the like and that your players are fine with you assuming or establishing what their characters are doing. I don't prefer to do that. Further, there is no "template" or sentence structure that is required. It's just one human talking to another human and being clear on what they want to do and how. If that seems weird to you, that's on you and how you interact with other humans, not on any special rules that exist at my table.

 

[HammerMan]

There is no “formal rule.” At session 0, I express to my players that I prefer they favor declarations of action over questions (e.g. “I look for another exit” is preferable to “can I see any other exits?”) and that in order to resolve an action I need to understand what their goal is and what their character is doing to try and accomplish it. When in doubt, “I try to X by Y” usually conveys all the information I need, but the phrasing doesn’t matter as long as I can understand those two things without having to make assumptions.

do you see how I can look at this and see "can't just talk normal gotta fit a template"

use your own example, "Can I see any other exists?" that is a full sentence, and it makes perfect sense. How ever you prefer it be rephrased to “I look for another exit”

what does one convey that the other lacks?

Because I am clear about the expectations starting from session 0, it is very rare that I need to stop anyone to ask them to rephrase an action. Sometimes someone who is new to my table will need to be asked for clarification once or twice near the beginning of a campaign, but people tend to catch on quickly, because it’s really very simple to do.

yes, once you get used to the word game I am sure it is... like jeopardy. If I am phrasing all answers as a question for enough time I can just do it... but it is still just a game of phrasing.

I imagine you’ve never had to stop and play 20 questions because you’re willing to make a lot more assumptions about an action than I am. When a player says “I intimidate the orc,” you don’t feel the need to ask any clarifying questions, because you’re fine with assuming the specifics of how the character tries to do that, and to what end.

most times yeah. Me and my friend (used to sit around a table now all on roll20) just talk to each other.

I am not, so I would need to ask the player, “what are you doing to try to intimidate him?” and “what do you want to accomplish by intimidating him?”

I may have to ask those questions if the request came out of left field "Um, the orc next to you in the bar? why?" but most times it will flow from the game and the context allows me to go with it. "Oh the orc you just asked like 4 quastions to and refused to talk... yeah I can connect those dots no issue"

So rather than set myself up to have to do that every time, I just tell the players in advance what information I’m looking for out of an action declaration and recommend an easy go-to phrasing they can use when they aren’t sure.

and push 'go with context of scene/night/campaign' from you to 'all answer must be in the form of a qustion' to the PC

 

[Charlaquin]

Further, there is no "template" or sentence structure that is required.

I think they’re getting that idea from my recommendation to use “I try to X by Y” when in doubt. The thing is, when in doubt is key. I offer that “template” as a go-to for players who are new to my table and might not be used to declaring actions in terms of goal and approach, and to nip in the bud any notion that what I’m looking for is any particular degree of descriptive detail.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

as I have no issue with how I read them. the same is true for everyone...

I respectfully disagree with this sentiment.

If I had that attitude when I came to Enworld a few years back, I’d be stuck in a style of game play that was mainly fun but also had some glaring clunky moments that kept it from being truly satisfying for me and others at the table. I’m here to learn and share in an attempt to improve my approach to playing this game we all love. If I’m going to spend big chunks of time playing this game, I want to go about it armed with the best tools and knowledge possible. I guess one might say that I take my fun seriously! As with anything one might want to master, keeping an open mind and reevaluating one’s own assumptions is part of a healthy process that aids improvement.

Happy gaming.

 

[HammerMan]

Part of that is just getting old. I played AD&D 2e in high school in the 90s. I couldn't tell you a single thing about the rules of that game except THAC0. I suspect we weren't even playing by the rules very well anyway. I can only barely remember some things from D&D 3e since I haven't played that since D&D 4e game out. Like I can remember certain references to things, but I could not tell you the different types of actions PCs can take or the like. The memory is very low resolution now. If I were to play D&D 4e now, I'd have to have a refresher.

agreed, I too can't remember details from last week sometimes. However those experiences (even the ones I can't remember details of) influence how we think and interpret everything we read. Our experences shape us. I can admit that my past shaped me, but your past shaped you too. I read the rules with 30+ years of gaming influences (rifts, D&D, LARPS, Gurps, WoD, ect) but so too do you.

Further, I ruthlessly interrogate every single thing I am doing in the game when I learn a new game. Is this thing I'm doing supported by the rules of this game? Or is this something I'm doing because another game suggests I do that?

and all of those are answered based on your past, as my answers are based on mine.

notice we have pulled page and quote out here, we have read the exact same words and I still don't agree with your interpretation.

Try running Dungeon World, for example, without getting rid or at least compartmentalizing how to run D&D 4e or 5e.

sounds like fun, I haven't tried a new system in a while, last one was TORG. TORG is also not D&D, it is much more exploration based and much more rounded. UNlike (any edition) D&D you can play a non combat character and still play through the whole campaign without firing a gun, swinging a sword or anything... I like it. Infact because of issues we had running shadow run we had (pre covid) considered running a shadowrun campaign using the TORG rules.

 

[HammerMan]

I do have a bias and preference for a correct reading of the rules, yes.

incorrect. You have no way have knowing for sure who is right and who is wrong in this case.

I actually like you posting your opinion. It allows me to refine my own points and allows other people to see all the ways you distort things which indirectly makes you and, by association, your position look worse.

nope

In a debate,

this isn't a debate

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

True story: I struggle to get my group to adopt the 5e playstyle. They have so much experience with previous editions, and that always worked for them, that they just aren't motivated to question it. I have to sneak up on them with it.