D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

And I'm not arguing that people are arguing to "roll every sentence, every step, even every climb." What happens often with many DMs, however, is that if something has the whiff of being worded similar to a "skill check," they call for a roll. If lie, the Deception check. If bully, then Intimidation check. They don't consider whether there's uncertainty or a meaningful consequence for failure or what the roll is otherwise actually resolving, which are the prerequisites for calling for an ability check in the first place. If consideration was given, then we wouldn't see people rolling to see if the orc can intimidate the PC.

To be fair, the DMG suggests (another guideline, I believe, but if its a rule we could have some fun with it) the Roll With It approach.

I'm more middle path, for D&D, that said.

 

[iserith]

To be fair, the DMG suggests (another guideline, I believe, but if its a rule we could have some fun with it) the Roll With It approach.

I'm more middle path, for D&D, that said.

The Roll With It approach isn't exempt from the adjudication process though. It just means the DM is finding more cases of uncertainty than the Middle Path intends. Just like the Ignoring the Dice approach is going to find fewer cases of uncertainty.

 

[clearstream]

Because the example was so tortured I had a hard time really following what is what the DM was adjudicating there, so I simplified it in a way that I think the rules show us. Certainly different DMs may call for different ability checks or skill proficiencies depending on their understanding of what the player is trying to do in context. For example it looks like you implemented the optional rule for using skill proficiencies with different ability scores. The question has ever been in this scenario whether there is uncertainty as to the outcome of a task to influence a PC. There isn't.

Setting aside that there is uncertainty as to the outcome of a task to influence a PC, if a DM decides there is, what interested me is that such situations can be reframed - flipped - to better respect player agency while also introducing uncertainty whatever you happen to think on the PHB 185 question.

 

[Faolyn]

There can't be since the player decides if they are deceived, intimidated, or persuaded.

Except a contest is an ability check and, for there to be an ability check, there must be uncertainty as to the outcome. There can be no uncertainty because the player decides how their character thinks, acts, and what they say. It is whatever they say it is. Therefore, the attempt to intimidate the PC is only description of the environment, not a task to be resolved. The player decides the outcome.

The uncertainty in what you're resolving is whether the PC can detect something about the NPC's mannerisms or body language that suggests their truthfulness. The result can be that they do detect something (success), don't detect something (fail), or that they do detect something, but something bad happens (progress combined with a setback).

That uncertainty is resolved by making an Insight check. That is literally the purpose of the Insight skill:

Insight. Your Wisdom (Insight) check decides whether you can determine the true intentions of a creature, such as when searching out a lie or predicting someone's next move. Doing so involves gleaning clues from body language, speech habits, and changes in mannerisms.

Do you not use Insight in your game?

When you have a contest, you aren't deciding what the PC thinks. You are determining what the dice say. The dice say that you spotted a tell, or lack of tells, that indicate that the NPC is lying or telling the truth (or vice versa; the NPC can use it to tell if the PC is lying). Whether the PC chooses to accept what the dice say is up to the player. I mean, the player could roll really well on Insight, the DM could say "she seems to be telling the truth here," and the player could still just not believe her.

What we don't do is roll the Charisma (Deception) check for the NPC up front. There is no uncertainty at that point where the PC is concerned since the player decides how the PC reacts to the deception. So, the NPC just lies and now it's on the PC to act. Some DMs may roll the check up front just to inform their description.

And some DMs may use a passive Deception, or roll ahead of the game, or only roll when the PC is using Insight and decides to make it a contest. Or they might not roll at all, if the NPC is telling the truth or has some trait that prevents others from telling its lying.

For example, if they roll low in their estimation, they may describe the NPC as fidgety or talking with a stutter or saying things that contradict other things. If they roll high in their estimation, they may tell the lie smoothly while making eye contact. The key thing is that it's not resolving a task to influence the PC. It's just rolling weighted dice to decide how to describe the environment.

So you're basically just telling the PCs that this guy is lying. Or trying to, at least. The first example (the fidgety one) sounds like me when I'm trying to talk in general (not lie, just talk: social anxiety for the win!). I would have no reason to assume that the person is lying, but that maybe they're being intimidated or controlled by someone.

And if you actually said "the guy looks you right in the eye when telling you this thing" I'd likely assume liar. Or they're using a gaze attack. (The thing about liars not looking you in the eye is mostly a myth.)

 

[clearstream]

What we don't do is roll the Charisma (Deception) check for the NPC up front. There is no uncertainty at that point where the PC is concerned since the player decides how the PC reacts to the deception. So, the NPC just lies and now it's on the PC to act. Some DMs may roll the check up front just to inform their description. For example, if they roll low in their estimation, they may describe the NPC as fidgety or talking with a stutter or saying things that contradict other things. If they roll high in their estimation, they may tell the lie smoothly while making eye contact. The key thing is that it's not resolving a task to influence the PC. It's just rolling weighted dice to decide how to describe the environment.

The problem for me as I outlined before, is you end up granting automatic success to the NPC's deceit, if the PCs don't query it.

 

[clearstream]

The Roll With It approach isn't exempt from the adjudication process though. It just means the DM is finding more cases of uncertainty than the Middle Path intends. Just like the Ignoring the Dice approach is going to find fewer cases of uncertainty.

Perhaps re-read what it says there. Especially if you are with the guidelines are rules folk.

 

[iserith]

Setting aside that there is uncertainty as to the outcome of a task to influence a PC, if a DM decides there is

I won't set that aside.

 

[HammerMan]

Setting aside that there is uncertainty as to the outcome of a task to influence a PC, if a DM decides there is, what interested me is that such situations can be reframed - flipped - to better respect player agency while also introducing uncertainty whatever you happen to think on the PHB 185 question.

another great question, I am sure there are many answers. Saves, insight or other skills the PC can roll. I don;t have a great answer but I would LOVE for others weigh in.

 

[clearstream]

So you're basically just telling the PCs that this guy is lying. Or trying to, at least. The first example (the fidgety one) sounds like me when I'm trying to talk in general (not lie, just talk: social anxiety for the win!). I would have no reason to assume that the person is lying, but that maybe they're being intimidated or controlled by someone.

And if you actually said "the guy looks you right in the eye when telling you this thing" I'd likely assume liar. Or they're using a gaze attack. (The thing about liars not looking you in the eye is mostly a myth.)

Unfortunately, this was an error that @Ovinomancer spotted maybe fifty pages ago, and it wasn't understood then.

 

[clearstream]

I won't set that aside.

Snap!