D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Faolyn]

Um, sure you are. You don't get to decide my PC's RP. If I know that he faces even extreme danger stoically and actually lives for the thrill of danger, it doesn't matter what you roll. He's not going to be intimidated.

Sure. And if you play your character as someone who is highly emotional and maybe a bit of a coward--you know, always gets other people to do the dangerous things first, won't try something unless he can get advantage on the roll, etc.--until some NPC tries to intimidate him, at which point he's suddenly impervious to such things?

That's the type of PC I've been talking about.

If they can't handle valid RP, that's on them.

No, it's on the entire party for having to deal with that player.

 

[Mordhau]

If you have every one of your characters as being the same in some way--such as never being intimidated--that's perfectly legitimate. It also does not make you a fun player to play with or GM for.

You're going in circles. I already basically said this.

Edit: To go back to the beginning, the way you deal with problem players, or just players who aren't approaching the game in a manner consistent with what everyone else is trying to do is to talk to them - not through mechanical enforcement.

If I'm running a horror game and the player wants to play their character as a blithe wise-cracking action hero completely unaffected by what's going on in the game world and the descriptions of the horrors before them then the problem is either crossed wires, or maybe the player is just a bad fit. Mechanics for social interaction have nothing to do with this issue. (And if the DM is just throwing in horror stuff and expecting that the players will react to it in the way he wants then it's the DM who is at fault.)

The right mechanics can help build atmosphere, but if the problem is basic lack of buy in, then they won't solve that.

 

[Faolyn]

"You think he's lying." is telling the PC what he thinks. He's unable to both think he's lying and either be unsure if he's lying or think he's telling the truth. Those are mutually exclusive positions. That is much different than you don't find any traps, which isn't actually telling the PC what to think, but is simply a statement of fact. If you want to let the player know that the NPC is lying or even probably lying, you tell the player that the NPCs body language is consistent with a lie. That doesn't tell the PC what to think.

I fail to see how "you think he's lying" and "everything about this person's body language is consistent with lying" aren't the same thing.

 

[Mordhau]

Honestly. Just kill Insight. It's the only way to be sure.

It's really not a necessary function.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure. And if you play your character as someone who is highly emotional and maybe a bit of a coward--you know, always gets other people to do the dangerous things first, won't try something unless he can get advantage on the roll, etc.--until some NPC tries to intimidate him, at which point he's suddenly impervious to such things?

Nope. But I get to decide if/when he's intimidated, not some roll. If he's highly emotional and a bit of a coward, I will portray him that way.

 

[iserith]

Sure it does. Fidgeters are liars. Fidgeters are not people who just fidget.

Why can't there be both people who fidget in general and people who fidget only when lying? Is that not a thing?

You specifically said "he's fidgeting, which is indicative of lying."

In the case of that specific NPC in the example after a successful Wisdom (Insight) check to reveal that NPC's lack of truthfulness, yes. I also said the NPC was stammering in the example you're misconstruing and using to obfuscate. Not a good look in my view.

You: This guy is fidgeting and he says blah.

Me: <not remembering that for you, fidgeting means liar> Um, OK?

Other people: Wait, he's fidgeting? I roll Insight!

Again, you're asserting something I did not say and twisting my words to suggest something I don't believe. That is not cool.

As well, nobody at my table would say they're "rolling Insight." Players don't ask to make ability checks. Plus, isn't that sort of acting out of character since they aren't declaring actions from the perspective of their characters in the context of the game world? That seems rather immersion-breaking for those of us (like you and me) who care about immersing themselves in the game. Is that what they do at your table? If so, I'd like to hear more about how you're able to maintain immersion with that sort of thing, but not when someone chooses not to have their character act intimidated in a way that is inconsistent with previously established characterization.

In any case, I noticed you didn't address how your character is disadvantaged by this. There's still nothing stopping you from making the very same attempted action as the "other people" in your example. So again, what has changed for your poor character here? That you didn't think to say "I roll Insight!" first? Is there a metagame competition going on at your table for who asked to roll first? I've done something like that before, but for claiming Inspiration and it can be fun. (But just for that particular one-shot as it reinforced a theme in the actual adventure.)

Clearly you rolled a nat 1 on your Insight check, then.

Luckily my ability score bonus and proficiency bonus more than make up for it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wish I could do that, but in my experience, if something doesn't get lodged in my brain right away it probably never will be. Mind you, my ADHD is really bad, like disability-level bad, is of the inattentive subtype, and I can't take meds for it because they messed up my heart and kidneys when I tried. And sadly, my brain is filled with 2e monster statblocks and not how that one NPC acted that one time.

Oof. Yeah, I’m primarily inattentive too, though definitely not as severely from the sound of it. Obviously everyone’s experience is unique and you know your own abilities best, but I do think you’re overestimating the sort of demand this style of play places on memory. Like, if the DM is doing their job, you’ll be given the information you need to be able to make a decision right in the moment. Maybe you don’t remember that the DM often uses nervous fidgeting to telegraph deception (if they do that - and as an aside, I agree that would make me quite uncomfortable as someone who unconsciously fidgets all the time), but the cool thing is you don’t have to. That the character is displaying a conspicuous behavioral trait in this moment is enough indication that there might be something worth investigating further - just as the description of an un-mortared brick on the floor in a dungeon would do.

There's a difference between getting the players to do something clever or try new things and deliberately focusing on a person's weak spot.

It’s not about getting the players to do something clever or try something new, it’s about letting the players’ decisions be the driving factor behind their success.

Look how much “your choices really matter!” is used to sell video games. And yet even the best-executed choice-focused CRPGs are a rumor of an echo of a footprint of a ghost of a shadow of what TTRPGs can be in that regard. Yet for some reason players are all too eager to throw away their power to make impactful choices in favor of letting the plastic (or, increasingly, digital) random number generators make the decisions for them. I don’t get it.

 

[Maxperson]

I fail to see how "you think he's lying" and "everything about this person's body language is consistent with lying" aren't the same thing.

One tells the player in absolute terms what his PC is thinking and the other doesn't.

 

[Charlaquin]

I fail to see how "you think he's lying" and "everything about this person's body language is consistent with lying" aren't the same thing.

The latter leaves you the opportunity to decide that your character doesn’t think he’s lying. This might be relevant if, for example, you’re roleplaying a character who’s flaw is that they’re very gullible. Or, is being deceived not one of the traits that it’s boring to play with people who never choose to do?

 

[Charlaquin]

Honestly. Just kill Insight. It's the only way to be sure.

It's really not a necessary function.

Well, as a lie-detector, I agree. As the social equivalent of perception/investigation, I think it’s useful.