D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

Not if the PC is never intimidated by anything.

There's a difference between not being intimidated when some bandit sticks a knife in your face because you know you're tougher than the bandit, and not being intimidated when a fully-decked-out warlord is sticking an armed-and-armored platoon of veteran soldiers in your face. If you decide your character isn't intimidated by that, there had better be a good and plausible reason why.

So here we're finally getting at the truth behind some posters' motivations I think. Some want the players to portray their characters in a particular way. That's fine. But that's not an issue the rules can solve or enforce. That is a table rule issue. Roleplaying is the player determining what their character does, thinks, and says regardless of what you prefer. If I want to be a hard-as-nails mercenary fighter who doesn't back down from a threat, that's my business, unless I agree to whatever it is you want via a table rule.

 

[clearstream]

I mean, the difference is very straightforward:

• Rules are rules
• Guidance is sorta rules but the DM can ignore
• Also, the DM can ignore all the rules because rulings not rules

The arguments have shifted, which is of course totally fine. No one should feel obliged to take a fixed position. What it seems we are now debating is whether we prefer to use prior-certainty or DM-decides, given both are equally well supported by the totality of rules and guidelines. Groups should choose whichever of those works best for them.

I can see problems with the procedural assumptions of prior-certainty. The inadequate handling of exceptions being the most striking.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, perhaps I misunderstand your position. You earlier seemed to differentiate between positions that I will call 'DM-decides' and 'prior-certainty', on the grounds that only the latter was supported by RAW. Rules as written.

If you are modifying that to say that prior-certainty is supported rather by rules and guidelines together - rather than RAW - then you have abandoned that razor. DM-decides is equally well supported by rules and guidelines together.

I mean, earlier in the thread I took the position that all text written in the rulebooks is rules text, and there are things the rules as written support and things the rules as written don’t support. A lot of folks seemed to take issue with my framing certain parts of the text as rules, so I shrugged and started using their preferred terminology of “rules and guidance.” Now because I’m saying “rules and guidance,” I’m getting pushback for using the term “RAW” to describe the combined textual support found within the rulebooks, since they contain “guidance” as well as “rules.” It’s all just so much pedantry to me. There are books which advise the reader on how best to run the game of Dungeons and Dragons. Those books explicitly tell the reader that they may disregard anything written therein that does not suit them. But they nonetheless advise certain ways of running the game and do not advise others. My stance is nothing more and nothing less than that calling for an ability check to determine the outcome of an action which would result in a player’s character thinking, feeling, or doing something not of the player’s deciding is of the latter category.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was actually addressing your advice not your game

I think it’s good advice, if one wants players to roleplay characters with flaws.

 

[clearstream]

Not if the PC is never intimidated by anything.

There's a difference between not being intimidated when some bandit sticks a knife in your face because you know you're tougher than the bandit, and not being intimidated when a fully-decked-out warlord is sticking an armed-and-armored platoon of veteran soldiers in your face. If you decide your character isn't intimidated by that, there had better be a good and plausible reason why.

It might be managed by making sure it is framed in terms of what the player wants their character to do. If it's something like - I refuse to be cowed even by this warlord - that doesn't really mean much. We need to know what they are attempting in the game world by taking that stance. Then we can decide to call for a check if that makes sense, set a DC, apply modifiers or advantage or disadvantage.

If a check is called for and is failed by the character, then they don't achieve what they hoped. Remember, something will have been at stake. Perhaps their honour or tough-guy image.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The arguments have shifted, which is of course totally fine. No one should feel obliged to take a fixed position. What it seems we are now debating is whether we prefer to use prior-certainty or DM-decides, given both are equally well supported by the totality of rules and guidelines. Groups should choose whichever of those works best for them.

I can see problems with the procedural assumptions of prior-certainty. The inadequate handling of exceptions being the most striking.

Let’s be crystal clear what you are saying here:

When it comes to whether or not a DM should call for an NPC to make an ability check that has a possible outcome of affecting how a PC thinks, acts, or talks, you feel the rules support both prior-certainty and DM decides? The former depending upon, and the latter ignoring, the p185 rule (or guidance, if that pleases you) on roleplaying. Is that accurate?

 

[Faolyn]

Still don't know where you're getting that. There seems to be some fundamental disconnect somewhere. If you're not literally telling them "NPC is trustworthy" or "You believe the NPC" then you're probably okay. If you're honoring their action declaration as I laid out, then it's all good. If you're rolling Charisma (Deception) for the NPC because they lied, establishing uncertainty as to whether the PC is influenced, and expect the player to play as if they are deceived or telling the player they must do so, then that goes against the player determining what their character thinks, does, and says.

See, I disagree that this is telling the player what their character thinks. Instead, when I roll for Deception, I am rolling for what the PC experiences. "He seems honest."

I think what you're put off by is that people tend to use sentences like "you think he's lying" in a way that (edit: you think) means the player can't choose otherwise. But that sort of phrasing isn't mind-control. It's just a shortcut, like saying "you don't find any traps on the chest." That doesn't mean there aren't any traps, and it doesn't mean the PC has to open the chest. And you don't have to trust an NPC just because the DM says "she seems honest." People use that "you think he's lying" or "she seems honest" because--as I pointed out--only giving the physical descriptions of the NPC like "he's fidgety and contradictory" doesn't always say what you intend it to say. Is a person's fidgetiness due to lying, nervousness for other reasons, a personality trait, or hemorrhoids? Are they contradicting themselves because they're lying, because they're a crappy storyteller, because the events were convoluted and possibly magical in nature, or because the DM made a mistake? Use a description with the phrase "you think he's lying" if you actually want to get across a message clearly.

(This is also why I don't like the advice "always trust the DM." No, the DM should be honest in what you experience, not in what things actually are like. Your PC's senses can fool them.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's abused when the player decides every single time that the PC isn't intimidated, unless there's mechanics to back it up (e.g. a failed save vs a Fear effect); no matter which PC that player is playing or what the circumstances are.

So the player always wants to play a certain type of cinematic Hero, who is never afraid (unless magic). What's the problem that needs a rule to fix?

If you get tired of that person always playing the same character, maybe play with someone else? How is forcing somebody to roleplay something they don't like a good solution?

 

[clearstream]

I mean, earlier in the thread I took the position that all text written in the rulebooks is rules text, and there are things the rules as written support and things the rules as written don’t support. A lot of folks seemed to take issue with my framing certain parts of the text as rules, so I shrugged and started using their preferred terminology of “rules and guidance.” Now because I’m saying “rules and guidance,” getting pushback for using the term “RAW” to describe the combined textual support found within the rulebooks, since they contain “guidance” as well as “rules.” It’s all just so much pedantry to me. There are books which advise the reader on how best to run the game of Dungeons and Dragons. Those books explicitly tell the reader that they may disregard anything written therein that does not suit them. But they nonetheless advise certain ways of running the game and do not advise others. My stance is nothing more and nothing less than that calling for an ability check to determine the outcome of an action which would result in a player’s character thinking, feeling, or doing something not of the player’s deciding is of the latter category.

This is all arranged very neatly, to support your particular castle in the air. I'm truly surprised you don't see the errors in it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not if the PC is never intimidated by anything.

There's a difference between not being intimidated when some bandit sticks a knife in your face because you know you're tougher than the bandit, and not being intimidated when a fully-decked-out warlord is sticking an armed-and-armored platoon of veteran soldiers in your face. If you decide your character isn't intimidated by that, there had better be a good and plausible reason why.

Wait...why?

If you think I should be intimidated by the warlord and her platoon, it must be because they are more powerful than my character, but as DM you know that and I don't (in D&D it's hard to know that for sure because of weird zero-to-hero leveling stuff.). So if I refuse to be intimated, show me why I made a mistake. Have them kill my character, or whatever.

And if you're not planning, or willing, to do that...why should I be intimidated?

Why is it necessary for me to act intimidated?