D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

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.

Circular reasoning. Because you have committed to prior-certainty, you are forced to assume - even though it isn't said anywhere - that these guidelines do not mean exactly what they say.

This approach doesn’t really take meaningful stakes into consideration, it merely assumes that the risk of failure alone is enough to establish uncertainty.

This further reveals that your reading is tailored to suit your pre-existing commitments. Above you supposed that the words themselves must be hedged by other putative RAW. Here you suppose that the words themselves are not hedged by other RAW. I propose you amend your contention here to sustain that a Roll With It DM will also be considering stakes. That seems to me to be the safest way to preserve your commitments without sacrificing intellectual honesty.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Just to reiterate that whereas the overwhelming majority of your arguments are cogent, reasonable, ingenious, often surprising, and provocative (in a positive way) - notwithstanding that I don't agree with all of them - this argument is unhinged. I really can't engage with it.

 

[Lanefan]

Page 185 is not guidance.

This, "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." does not guide you in possible ways to play your character. It's a definitive rule about what roleplaying is.

It's a description or, at best, an attempted definition; not a hard rule.

Someone could play in full-on pawn stance without adding a shred of personality or characterization to their PC and still 100% be playing by RAW. (not that I prefer this style of play; I merely point out that it can, by RAW, be done)

 

[HammerMan]

DMs who use this style and those who rule that failure on a roll means no further attempts can be made unless circumstances change.

wait... you mean like the pick locks 2e rule?

 

[clearstream]

It's a description or, at best, an attempted definition; not a hard rule.

Someone could play in full-on pawn stance without adding a shred of personality or characterization to their PC and still 100% be playing by RAW. (not that I prefer this style of play; I merely point out that it can, by RAW, be done)

The section in the PHB on Social Interaction is directly referenced and categorised as guidelines by DMG 244.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

yes, yes there is, I was listing all of the possible reasons though...(that i could think of)

You could just say something like “I threaten them with violence if they don’t do what I want” or whatever.

yeah, and that would be cool in my games.

Remember, specific detail is not what’s required, only clarity of intent and action. What are you doing, and with what purpose?

yes but "useing my character's skill to do X that I can not or will not explain how" is a perfect able it wordy declaration of pretty clear intent.

I intimidate the orc and I use arcana to look at the ruins...

 

[Lanefan]

Oh, for the billionth time! We’re talking about what’s supported, not what’s allowed. Nobody is saying going against guidance in the rukebooks is houseruling. It’s just making a ruling the rules don’t support. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with doing that.

Guidance is not rules, therefore the bolded bit is a non-sequitur. Guidance, moreover, is often just an attempt by the designers to impart a in-their-minds-desired flavour to the game and-or an explanation to brand new players/DMs as to how the game might work in practice.

The only argument possible here is, in some cases, one over where guidance ends and rules begin; again something that's been true in every edition so far and probably something that can only really be settled table by table.

 

[Charlaquin]

Circular reasoning.

In what way is it circular? The rules are quite clear that there must be a chance of failure to roll. It would also just be very strange for even a DM who prefers the Roll With It style to call for a roll when failure isn’t possible.

Because you have committed to prior-certainty, you are forced to assume - even though it isn't said anywhere - that these guidelines do not mean exactly what they say.

No, I do believe they mean exactly what they say. Nothing in the text describing Roll With It talks about stakes.

This further reveals that your reading is tailored to suit your pre-existing commitments. Above you supposed that the words themselves must be hedged by other putative RAW. Here you suppose that the words themselves are not hedged by other RAW. I propose you amend your contention here to sustain that a Roll With It DM will also be considering stakes. That seems to me to be the safest way to preserve your commitments without sacrificing intellectual honesty.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[Charlaquin]

Guidance is not rules, therefore the bolded bit is a non-sequitur. Guidance, moreover, is often just an attempt by the designers to impart a in-their-minds-desired flavour to the game and-or an explanation to brand new players/DMs as to how the game might work in practice.

The only argument possible here is, in some cases, one over where guidance ends and rules begin; again something that's been true in every edition so far and probably something that can only really be settled table by table.

When ascertaining what is supported by the text and what is not, I don’t think there’s any value in distinguishing between rules and guidance. Both are contained within the text, and both support the DM in making rulings.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Which is fine until one realizes there's a whole lot o' players out there (IME the majority of 'em) who can and will abuse this at every opportunity.

All too often, good-faith play has to be legislated somehow.