D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

"in-game advantages"?

Isn't refusing to be intimidated by somebody who should intimidate you be a huge liability? I could see that character type causing all kinds of problems for the party.

Unless, of course, the NPC isn't actually, really, justifiably intimidating, but just rolled well at their "Intimidate check".

But do you see my point?

Kind of...perhaps.

And this brings it right back to what I said about 75 pages ago: if PCs can choose to ignore these things there's no justifiable reason why NPCs can't make that same choice, which makes the very existence of those skills pointless. Get rid of them.

 

[Lanefan]

How do game mechanics force them to follow through on role-playing?

They don't, now. But if successful persuasion worked like a minor Charm but only around the specific topic covered by the persuasion attempt, or intimidate carried some mechanical heft (e.g. in order to do anything aggressive against the person who has intinmidated you, you must first make a Wisdom save to overcome your fear) then they'd have some actual use.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Kind of...perhaps.

And this brings it right back to what I said about 75 pages ago: if PCs can choose to ignore these things there's no justifiable reason why NPCs can't make that same choice, which makes the very existence of those skills pointless. Get rid of them.

The difference is that information isn't symmetric. If the PCs threaten NPCs, the DM knows exactly how capable the PCs are of carrying out their threats (and probably also the likelihood of them doing it), as well as the ability of the NPCs to resist. The dice take the decision away from the person who knows too much to be impartial.*

When NPCs threaten PCs, the players don't really know the "intentions and capabilities" (to borrow a polisci term) of the other side. So you don't need dice to resolve the outcome.

At least, that's how I play. Clearly YMMV.

*That said, I'm also totally fine with the DM simply deciding how the NPCs react. But the dice are there if the DM decides that it's...drumroll...uncertain.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'd use xp as the carrot except I know myself well enough to realize I'd inevitably end up playing favourites, which is awful; and the same is true of any other DM-controlled reward system like that. If it was player-driven my concern (borne out by experience in other ways) is that meta-alliances would form, with particular players always rewarding each other and no-one else.

Now these are legitimate concerns.
that’s why you should have the players claim it themselves.

 

[Charlaquin]

Meh - it's not as bad as I probably make it sound; but we have had bad-faith players in our games now and then, along with the occasional outright cheater. And given as we're all friends outside the game, trying to do anything about it can get a bit awkward.

I mean… Have you considered just… not doing anything about it? It seems like your players might just find it fun playing to eke out those advantages. So, why stop them?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I mean… Have you considered just… not doing anything about it? It seems like your players might just find it fun playing to eke out those advantages. So, why stop them?

Pleasure is a sin and must be purged. By fire, if necessary.

 

[clearstream]

Answer the question - I even said “guidance if that pleases you”


EDIT: I’m realizing this is probably not coming across as I intended which was “Answer the Question” in a manner like “A Few Good Men” and then you say “You can’t handle the truth!” And then some other things happen. But I just watched the clip and not only did i botch the line but boy does everyone look so young.

Gotcha. I don't have time right now, but I'll pen an answer and post it later. I'm framing it - were PHB 185 a game rule, what will that entail? Right?

 

[clearstream]

I posted quotes that most to all of the DMG consists of guidelines.

I would agree with you that most of the DMG consists of guidelines.

Guidelines are a flexible way to advise DMs how they might run the game. With guidelines, it's okay to have contradictory statements because they don't have the weight of rules: readers don't need to decide or agree on which prevails. What prevails is whatever the reader wants to take away from the guidelines. My stance is that in conjunction with other designer statements and community norms, guidelines give us RAI.

 

[Maxperson]

I would agree with you that most of the DMG consists of guidelines.

Guidelines are a flexible way to advise DMs how they might run the game. With guidelines, it's okay to have contradictory statements because they don't have the weight of rules: readers don't need to decide or agree on which prevails. What prevails is whatever the reader wants to take away from the guidelines. My stance is that in conjunction with other designer statements and community norms, guidelines give us RAI.

I don't quite agree with that. The encounter creation rules. The entirety of them......................guidelines. Every last rule in the DM's workshop...............................guidelines. All the rules on creating NPCs.......................guidelines. All the magic item and treasure rules........................guidelines.

5e has created a situation where guidelines and rules are completely interchangeable.

 

[Aldarc]

Do you really need, or honestly even want, rules that try to force people to share your aesthetic preferences?

Irony.

Okay, back to stalking this thread.