D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

Rolling with it: Ability Checks for every action that has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. The DM is making this hard for the players with inserting a lot of meaningful consequences. Only the very easiest actions are auto-success, only the most impossible actions are auto-fail.

You may want to go back and re-read the text. It's under The Role of Dice at the start of Chapter 8 in the DMG.

To save you some time, there it reads "When a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check and and picks a DC." That does not differentiate between PCs and NPCs.

It continues that "...using this style, you can't rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in a specific direction."

Concluding that "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterisations, always determine success."

Then also reflect on what happens if guidelines are rules?

 

[iserith]

The prompting or pixel-hunting implied by @iserith's stated approach.

What pixel-hunting are you referring to? That's not something that goes on in my games, despite your completely unfounded assertion.

I'm going to start considering these sorts of assertions ad hominem. Because they simply cannot be based on any arguments we are making. I would prefer not to hear this assertion again.

 

[Faolyn]

Wisdom (Insight) in this example is resolving the player's action, not the NPC's. You can set a DC by rolling it as a contest or not, as you see fit. But what we're not doing is rolling to resolve the NPC's attempt to influence the PC and saying the PC believes it if the roll hits a particular DC. That would go against the players controlling what their PCs think. So when the DM is looking at adjudicating the NPC's task, we can't call for an ability check at this point because we run into a lack of uncertainty about the outcome. The player decides what the outcome is here.


First, I'm not a DM that rolls dice to decide how to describe the environment. I'm just saying some DMs do. But anyway, you know what they say about assuming. It's smarter play to take action in the game world to verify one's assumptions.

So... we shouldn't use Insight to determine if the PC can tell if the NPC is lying or not because somehow that makes the player be mind-controlled by the dice. And we shouldn't believe what you the DM are saying either, because that would involve assumptions.

So what in-game actions should be taken to verify here?

 

[HammerMan]

In what corner case would you need to make a roll to determine a thing the player decides (specifically, how they react to an NPC’s attempt to get them to do something)?

the NPC/Monster is doing something in game that for one reason or another will not work to explain in detail (the DM can't or wont, or even just by agreement details of this type be they gorey or sexual or something else is something that has been agreed to not have details) but there is a chance it works and a chance it doesn't.

Up thread (about 80 pages ago) someone told me "I intimidate the _____" wasn't an expectable declaration, and then they (maybe a third party) put a very over the top gorey and grisly description of what they would say instead. Like I said then, that would get red carded by at least 2 people I know and play with. It would stop game and cause us to loose time playing. (tbh it was so bad it might get a player asked to leave and cost us the rest of the night as we break for people to calm down). I am sure we could fill pages with similar things that would get red carded.

so falling back on gam mechanics (what stat/skill what DC, roll the d20) is easier in those cased.

You can also just not have a scenario prepped (I don't know about you but I have players leap at the darndest off the cuff coment and derail hours of my prep all the time) so now you don't have a personality or even a plot point to work with, but you have the game mechanics.

You can also just be a shy newer DM playing with veteran players who are all tougher then you... nothing you say will EVER come off as intimidation

Also there can be different interpretations of the same description and you want to avoid miscommunication (see above looking you right in the eye)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You may want to go back and re-read the text. It's under The Role of Dice at the start of Chapter 8 in the DMG.

To save you some time, there it reads "When a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check and and picks a DC." That does not differentiate between PCs and NPCs.

It continues that "...using this style, you can't rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in a specific direction."

Concluding that "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterisations, always determine success."

So you believe the Rolling With It section, when referring to characters, means both NPCs and PCs? Ok.

You see how that section can be read as pertaining just to PCs, right? I mean, not a single mention of creatures or NPCs throughout. Every example in the section is player-based. Do you have other examples in the rules of where NPCs are described simply as "characters"?

Then also reflect on what happens if guidelines are rules?

Perhaps the entire book is guidelines! After all, it's called the Dungeon Masters's Guide and not the Dungeon Master's Rulebook. Amirite?

 

[iserith]

So... we shouldn't use Insight to determine if the PC can tell if the NPC is lying or not because somehow that makes the player be mind-controlled by the dice. And we shouldn't believe what you the DM are saying either, because that would involve assumptions.

So what in-game actions should be taken to verify here?

I'm not sure where you're getting this. I've said what Wisdom (Insight) resolves. As well, always trust the DM. Don't always trust NPCs!

 

[Charlaquin]

You may want to go back and re-read the text. It's under The Role of Dice at the start of Chapter 8 in the DMG.

To save you some time, there it reads "When a character attempts a task, the DM calls for a check and and picks a DC." That does not differentiate between PCs and NPCs.

It continues that "...using this style, you can't rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in a specific direction."

Concluding that "A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterisations, always determine success."

Then also reflect on what happens if guidelines are rules?

My reading of the Role of the Dice is that Rolling With It involves calling for a roll any time an action has a chance of failure - a criteria for uncertainty that is very clearly laid out in the rules. This approach doesn’t really take meaningful stakes into consideration, it merely assumes that the risk of failure alone is enough to establish uncertainty. In my experience, this style is favored by DMs who think of “using skills” as actions in and of themselves, and there is also a strong correlation between DMs who use this style and those who rule that failure on a roll means no further attempts can be made unless circumstances change. While I personally don’t care for this style, I must concede (and have done so up thread when @Lyxen pointed it out) that it is supported by the rules, albeit with the caveat that it has some drawbacks (which I personally find to be intolerable).

On the other end of the spectrum, ignoring the dice favors ruling automatic success or failure unless doing so would violate another rule, or if absolutely no hint of certainty can be found. This style is likewise supported, with the caveat that it has drawbacks (which I personally find tolerable, but less than ideal)

The middle path balances between the two by using meaningful stakes as an additional criteria for uncertainty. It is supported and lists no drawbacks, though I would note that some (looking at you, @Lanefan) may consider the fact that this often means granting automatic success despite failure being a possibility to be a drawback of this style, as it may break their sense of versimilitude.

 

[clearstream]

So you believe the Rolling With It section, when referring to characters, means both NPCs and PCs? Ok.

You see how that section can be read as pertaining just to PCs, right? I mean, not a single mention of creatures or NPCs throughout. Every example in the section is player-based. Do you have other examples in the rules of where NPCs are described simply as "characters"?

Yes. In the DMG again - "A non-player character is any character controlled by the Dungeon Master."

Perhaps the entire book is guidelines! After all, it's called the Dungeon Masters's Guide and not the Dungeon Master's Rulebook. Amirite?

You are! The greater part of the DMG provides guidelines and not rules. It's folk that count guidelines as rules who have the problem here.

 

[Charlaquin]

the NPC/Monster is doing something in game that for one reason or another will not work to explain in detail (the DM can't or wont, or even just by agreement details of this type be they gorey or sexual or something else is something that has been agreed to not have details) but there is a chance it works and a chance it doesn't.

Up thread (about 80 pages ago) someone told me "I intimidate the _____" wasn't an expectable declaration, and then they (maybe a third party) put a very over the top gorey and grisly description of what they would say instead. Like I said then, that would get red carded by at least 2 people I know and play with. It would stop game and cause us to loose time playing. (tbh it was so bad it might get a player asked to leave and cost us the rest of the night as we break for people to calm down). I am sure we could fill pages with similar things that would get red carded.

so falling back on gam mechanics (what stat/skill what DC, roll the d20) is easier in those cased.

You can also just not have a scenario prepped (I don't know about you but I have players leap at the darndest off the cuff coment and derail hours of my prep all the time) so now you don't have a personality or even a plot point to work with, but you have the game mechanics.

You can also just be a shy newer DM playing with veteran players who are all tougher then you... nothing you say will EVER come off as intimidation

Also there can be different interpretations of the same description and you want to avoid miscommunication (see above looking you right in the eye)

There’s a lot of daylight between that quite graphic example (I remember the one you’re talking about quite well) and leaving the action totally abstract. You could just say something like “I threaten them with violence if they don’t do what I want” or whatever. Remember, specific detail is not what’s required, only clarity of intent and action. What are you doing, and with what purpose?

 

[Charlaquin]

You are! The greater part of the DMG provides guidelines and not rules. It's folk that count guidelines as rules who have the problem here.

Again, I don’t think there’s any value in drawing a hard line between the two when it comes to determining what is or isn’t supported.