D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Faolyn]

Perhaps you can see that how the DM says a thing actually puts the DM's thumb on the scale as to how the player is expected to react. I know that some are saying "Oh, but they can do what they want" on the one hand, then saying they do have an expectation that if they're not acting in the expected way, they aren't really roleplaying. At least one in this thread penalizes their XP. So I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it here.

As well, I think you may be confusing my description of the environment with the narration of the adventurer's action. If I were to say that someone is fidgety, that's going to be on the front end. It's a clue in the description of the environment that this person you're interacting with may have something going on with them. Just like the scorch mark on the wall opposite the door may suggest that there may be some danger in interacting with the door. Maybe the player picks up on this and takes action to find out more before making assumptions about what's going on and maybe they don't. After resolving, say, a Wisdom (Insight) check, then I'm narrating the success or failure of the player's action declaration e.g. "The NPC's fidgeting and stammering indicates a lack of truthfulness..." Then I loop back around to describing the environment, perhaps having the NPC continue to fidget and spin lies. What does the character do about that? Play on to find out.

How is "he seems to be lying" different from "his fidgeting and stammering indicate a lack of truthfulness"? That would "put a thumb on the scale" as to how the player is expected to react and set it up so any further NPC who fidgets would be seen as a potential liar.

 

[Charlaquin]

Frankly, I think Insight is better used for getting a read on a character’s emotional state than detecting if they’re lying. That’s a “best practices” thing though, not a “the text supports/doesn’t support” thing.

 

[iserith]

How is "he seems to be lying" different from "his fidgeting and stammering indicate a lack of truthfulness"? That would "put a thumb on the scale" as to how the player is expected to react and set it up so any further NPC who fidgets would be seen as a potential liar.

Insight is specific in what is being examined in the action the PC is taking. I think it's best to cleave as closely to that as possible. Not that I would necessarily describe the body language, speech habits, or mannerisms the same every time as is implied by your assertion, as for fidgeting in other NPCs indicating they may be lying - good! That means the player is paying attention, retaining information, and then applying what they learned in the game. That's a good result and an example of player (and perhaps character) skill. However, it's still an assumption on the part of the player and taking action to verify one's assumptions is smart play.

As well, let's keep this in context. You have a particular way you want players to portray their character in order for you to think of them as roleplaying correctly. That is a bias that may show up in how you narrate the results of the adventurers' actions. As you can see, I'm careful to avoid this.

 

[iserith]

Frankly, I think Insight is better used for getting a read on a character’s emotional state than detecting if they’re lying. That’s a “best practices” thing though, not a “the text supports/doesn’t support” thing.

In my games, it's mostly used to sus out an NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, and flaw. Figuring those things out means the PCs can play to them and gain advantage or automatic success when trying to improve the NPC's attitude or otherwise get them to do what they want them to do.

 

[Lanefan]

Why does it matter to you that the PC never describes their character as intimidated? Why is that abuse?

That a player never describes a particular PC as intimidated, if it otherwise fits with that character, is more or less OK.

That a player never describes any of their PCs as intimidated even when doing so would fit with the character otherwise, is abusing the system. And I've known many a player who would do just this until and unless a game mechanic forced a change of thinking.

Put another way, IME many players are bad at self-penalizing and need the game to apply penalties for them.

 

[iserith]

That a player never describes a particular PC as intimidated, if it otherwise fits with that character, is more or less OK.

That a player never describes any of their PCs as intimidated even when doing so would fit with the character otherwise, is abusing the system. And I've known many a player who would do just this until and unless a game mechanic forced a change of thinking.

Put another way, IME many players are bad at self-penalizing and need the game to apply penalties for them.

What about the system is being abused though?

 

[Lanefan]

What about if you're character is Snake Plisken, or one of a thousand Hollywood action heroes who make jokes in the face of overwhelming odds?

Sure, that's fine - once.

But every character? That's overkill.

And there's the underlying rationale to look at, and where it comes from: it this a legitimate way this PC would act or is it the player in the metagame trying to avoid appearing suboptimal?

These sorts of characters might reveal a fundamental disconnect in the sort of game everyone at the table wants to be playing, but it's still playing the character of a kind.

Within the bounds of a single character, I agree. The abuse I referred to upthread is a small aspect of a bigger issue of some players needing the game to impose penalties because they won't impose their own.

 

[Mordhau]

Sure, that's fine - once.

But every character? That's overkill.

And there's the underlying rationale to look at, and where it comes from: it this a legitimate way this PC would act or is it the player in the metagame trying to avoid appearing suboptimal?

Within the bounds of a single character, I agree. The abuse I referred to upthread is a small aspect of a bigger issue of some players needing the game to impose penalties because they won't impose their own.

Who gets to decide whether something is a legitimate way for a character to act?

 

[Lanefan]

What about the system is being abused though?

Allowing one's PC to be [intimidated, persuaded etc.] almost inevitably means that PC is going to end up saying or doing something it otherwise wouldn't want to to, exactly as it would were it an NPC who'd been [persuaded, intimidated etc.].

Players quite reasonably don't want their characters put in these positions, and so if there's ever to be a chance for a PC to be [persuaded, intimidated, etc.] the game mechanics have to somehow force it. If the game mechanics don't force it, then it's on the honour of the players to play their PCs with enough integrity to allow them to be [intimidated, persuaded etc.] now and then when such makes sense in the situation; and IME many (most?) don't or won't.

 

[Lanefan]

Who gets to decide whether something is a legitimate way for a character to act?

Anyone at the table can usually and easily tell if a character that's been around even a half dozen sessions isn't being played to its usual form and character. Further, IME nearly all examples of such are because they player is either trying to gain an in-game advantage* or avoid an in-game penalty*.

It's rare another player will call this out, however, and-or if they do it's by secret note to the DM; thus either way it's left to the DM to call out.

* - which may or may not be mechanical in nature; e.g. being persuaded carries no mechanical heft but still has a lot to say about what your PC does next.