D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Faolyn]

That is not telling the player what the character thinks. It's honoring their action declaration and the result of the dice and telling them what they observe, just like observing the outline of a secret door or a pressure plate for a trap. Suggesting otherwise looks to me an attempt to obfuscate to try to justify saying what the character thinks in general, which some DMs definitely like doing in my experience, especially those who have a preference for players to portray their characters in particular ways.

Orrrr you just realized that you're telling me what my character thinks and are now trying to backtrack.

I'm not obfuscating at all. You are trying to tell me that my character thinks that fidgeting or stammering indicates a liar.

Oh, and if you point out the outline of a secret door, you're saying "Hey, there's a thing here to investigate." If you point out a stutter, you're doing the exact same thing.

Some people fidget and stammer while lying. Google that if you don't believe me. I didn't make it up to offend people who stammer and fidget for other reasons. So please spare us all any misplaced outrage.

And many people don't. Google that if you don't believe me. But go on and try to claim it's only because I'm "outraged" and thus try to pin the blame on me.

It's not pixel-hunting. It's describing the environment. It also makes the NPCs stand out and feel more real. That you can also pick up on the clues to make informed decisions is added value. This approach does double duty in that regard.

It's pixel-hunting, because you're expecting the players to pick up on a tell--which in this case seems to be "this NPC is important, so investigate them."

Your character can attempt whatever action you want them to attempt at any time. I, as DM, adjudicate it into a result, sometimes calling for a roll. Every player at the table can do the same. You are not disadvantaged here at all.

Ah, so now we're all at your mercy here. Or could I just say "hey, I want to roll Insight on this guy and see if he's lying" and you'd let me?

 

[iserith]

Orrrr you just realized that you're telling me what my character thinks and are now trying to backtrack.

I'm not obfuscating at all. You are trying to tell me that my character thinks that fidgeting or stammering indicates a liar.

Oh, and if you point out the outline of a secret door, you're saying "Hey, there's a thing here to investigate." If you point out a stutter, you're doing the exact same thing.

If you think I'm the sort to backtrack, then you haven't been paying attention.

And many people don't. Google that if you don't believe me. But go on and try to claim it's only because I'm "outraged" and thus try to pin the blame on me.

We weren't talking about "many people" though. We were talking about one NPC in a specific situation.

It's pixel-hunting, because you're expecting the players to pick up on a tell--which in this case seems to be "this NPC is important, so investigate them."

Again, you are wrong because, as I've said, I don't expect the players to do anything with the clue. It's there. Remember when I said sometimes they pick up on it and sometimes they don't and that's fine? It was in this very thread. The only thing I care about is that the clue is present when describing the environment. That's what I can control. I don't care about things I can't control.

Ah, so now we're all at your mercy here. Or could I just say "hey, I want to roll Insight on this guy and see if he's lying" and you'd let me?

In this game, we're all equally at the DM's "mercy" - the rules say the players can only describe what they want to do and the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' action, sometimes calling for a roll. Though I don't think it's a matter of the DM being merciful but just understanding and performing the DM's role reasonably well. If you asked me to roll an ability check, I would remind you that I need to hear your goal and approach before I decided if an ability check was called for and ask you to be reasonably specific about what you're doing in-character to get at the information you want. You know, act in a way that is immersive for everyone at the table. You get that, right?

 

[HammerMan]

I'm not following your logic fully here. The question is: How does the ability check result determine the degree of success by the rules?

it doesn't by the RAW it is binary... yes/no

You seem to be conflating ability scores and ability checks in some way.

no I don't think I am

A high ability score gives a bonus in the form of a modifier. There is also the concept of a proficiency bonus. These modifiers and proficiencies certainly are added to an ability check when appropriate. They do influence the chance to succeed.

yup

I fail to see where ability scores determine the degree of the success. I see no obvious connection in the Ability Check section of the rules. This seems to be some leap, perhaps influenced by your participation in prior editions of the game. I honestly am not following your path to "this is a very clear rule" here.

1st forget all other editions (Iserith claims too then quotes 3e) or at least the best you can.

Let me approach this another way to see if I understand:

A 4th level PC with an 16 Charisma and a proficiency in Persuasion would have a +5 bonus to any CHA(Persuasion) ability checks. I think you are saying this is a pretty persuasive individual and I would agree. They might be roleplayed as having great confidence in social situations.

Okay, and if you can't role play it then when it matters I would expect the DM would let you roll.

Let's say the DM calls a Charisma ability check and the DC is 18 to persuade a stubborn guard to let the party past.

perfect (I guess I really don't know how to set DCs by the book although I have read it more now then in last 10 years)

If the player, when asked to roll an ability check, rolls a total of 7 (2 on the die), are you saying this quite persuasive character is now a person who is stumbling over their words?

no, i mean it can be (and I have seen players play it that way)

How does this degree of failure jive with the fact that this PC is very persuasive by the virtue of their Charisma score and proficiency as you try to connect in your post above?

by my house rule every roll is NOT degrees... but when they make sense in the fiction of the world. I agree with your assessment, in this case (baring outside factors) it would just be a normal fail.

Isn't this result simply an indication that this guard did not buy the PC's reasoning for getting past?

yeah.

Like in the natural language reading of Ability Checks? In other words, the low roll indicated that the approach by the PC failed. It didn't necessarily mean this socially confident PC suddenly became tongue tied or rude. Or, in your game, is that exactly what it meant?

nope you example is a pretty text book example of 'just not good enough.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course there can be. But not when you say "he's fidgeting, which is indicative of lying" and using that across the board. This is why I specifically called out other options, like saying "you've noticed that this person fidgets when they lie."

@iserith has been quite clear that they might use fidgeting as a tell an individual character has, not as an across-the-board indicator of lying. Noticing that this specific character fidgets when they lie is something they’ve said you might learn as the result of a successful Wisdom (Insight) check.

And now that I think about it, when you say "he's fidgeting, which is indicative of lying," that's telling me what my player thinks: you're saying that my character views fidgeting as a sign of being a liar.

If done that way, sure. But keep in mind the whole process here. The DM describes what the character is doing, possibly including some telegraph that something is amiss. You describe your character’s action, with the goal of figuring out if they’re lying. If the result of that action is uncertain, the DM might call for you to make a check. If you succeed in your goal of recognizing that the character is lying, the DM will tell you they’re lying. At no point are you being told that your character thinks the telegraph indicated that the character was lying. That’s something you’re free to put together yourself, or not, as you like.

Yes, it's also not good to conflate stammering with lying.

Agreed, but one character who has a personality trait or flaw that they stammer when they lie isn’t that.

But again, this is what people are calling pixel hunting. Most DM's I've played with over the decades are more than willing to use things like fidgeting, stammering, or whatever as character traits, ways to make NPCs stand out and feel more real.

As is @iserith, and they have said as much in this conversation.

You're using them as traits we're supposed to notice and pick up on to determine who is important to the adventure.

Not to determine who’s important to the adventure. Simply as something to interact with, to try and sus out the character’s personality traits, ideal, bond, and flaw. Again, similar to the scorch mark on the wall across from the door. It’s an invitation to action, not a pixel you have to hunt down and click on.

Some players do. Maybe not at your table, but some do.

They don’t do it at @iserith’s table because it’s laid out in the table rules that when asked what to do, you declare an action (including goal and approach) not ask a question or request to make an ability check. (Or something along those lines, I don’t know how they word it exactly).

Easy: you're expecting me to remember something, and if I can't, then my character is out of luck.

Tell me, would you let me call for an Insight check out of the blue, if there wasn't anything that I the player could pick out--like a fidget or stammer--as being suspicious? I'm guessing no, because you apparently don't allow your players to call for checks. Would you point it out every time this NPC fidgeted or stammered? "Hey, Faolyn, this guy is acting strangely, hint hint"?

Or would you wait for me, the player, to pick up on the hint myself? If it's this, then my character is disadvantaged by your DMing style.

I’m not @iserith, but I have a pretty solid understanding of their style, given that my own is very similar. If I’m not mistaken, while you couldn’t just declare you’re making an Insight check, you would be free at any time to describe an action in terms of what you want to accomplish and what your character does to try and accomplish it, and @iserith would either describe the results of that action, or if they were uncertain, ask you to make a Wisdom check (to which you could add your Insight proficiency) to resolve that uncertainty, and then describe the results, before continuing to describe the environment and how it has changed in response to your action. You could do so with or without any prompting, though paying attention to their description of environment might help you make informed decisions about what you want your character to do.

 

[HammerMan]

It's pixel-hunting, because you're expecting the players to pick up on a tell--which in this case seems to be "this NPC is important, so investigate them."

and another great example of
"If the player catches it then the character does" even if that means a Wis 20 skill expertise in perception AND insight with the observant feat player is oblivious, well a wis 10 untrained character notices because the player knows how to pixel hunt.

 

[HammerMan]

They don’t do it at @iserith’s table because it’s laid out in the table rules that when asked what to do, you declare an action (including goal and approach) not ask a question or request to make an ability check. (Or something along those lines, I don’t know how they word it exactly).

YEs Iserith has explained he has trained his players well.

I’m not @iserith, but I have a pretty solid understanding of their style, given that my own is very similar.

thank you... yes it is his style....I said that like a dozen times he kept saying he didn't have one.

If I’m not mistaken, while you couldn’t just declare you’re making an Insight check, you would be free at any time to describe an action in terms of what you want to accomplish and what your character does to try and accomplish it, and @iserith would either describe the results of that action, or if they were uncertain, ask you to make a Wisdom check (to which you could add your Insight proficiency) to resolve that uncertainty, and then describe the results, before continuing to describe the environment and how it has changed in response to your action. You could do so with or without any prompting, though paying attention to their description of environment might help you make informed decisions about what you want your character to do.

and agan word games... Player wants to use a character skill and has to play Jeopardy but instead of phrasing the answer in the form of a question must phrase the request to use in game knowledge in the form of an action.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm not following your logic fully here. The question is: How does the ability check result determine the degree of success by the rules?

it doesn't by the RAW it is binary... yes/no

Ding ding ding.

no I don't think I am

yup

1st forget all other editions (Iserith claims too then quotes 3e) or at least the best you can.

Okay, and if you can't role play it then when it matters I would expect the DM would let you roll.

perfect (I guess I really don't know how to set DCs by the book although I have read it more now then in last 10 years)

no, i mean it can be (and I have seen players play it that way)

by my house rule every roll is NOT degrees... but when they make sense in the fiction of the world. I agree with your assessment, in this case (baring outside factors) it would just be a normal fail.

yeah.

nope you example is a pretty text book example of 'just not good enough.

It appears we agree in the end. What a long strange trip it's been.

 

[Charlaquin]

it doesn't by the RAW it is binary... yes/no

So if this is the case, and in your games the player determines how the character reacts to the attempt at intimidation (as you have said is the case)… What exactly are you using the result of the roll to determine?

1st forget all other editions (Iserith claims too then quotes 3e)

Umm… When did that happen? I don’t think that has happened in this conversation.

 

[Charlaquin]

YEs Iserith has explained he has trained his players well.

thank you... yes it is his style....I said that like a dozen times he kept saying he didn't have one.

Whatever; I’m not interested in getting into the semantics of what constitutes a “style.” If you take issue with their use of language, take it up with them. Though I find that a strange thing to do, coming from the person who admonished me for “controlling how people can talk.”

and agan word games... Player wants to use a character skill and has to play Jeopardy but instead of phrasing the answer in the form of a question must phrase the request to use in game knowledge in the form of an action.

Skills are not character tools. They are a source of bonuses on ability checks, and ability checks are how the DM determines the outcome of uncertain actions. What a player wants when they try to “use a skill” is to achieve a certain outcome, which they believe a successful check will allow them to do (and if they have a big bonus to a certain skill, they probably believe they will have a good chance of succeeding on a check with it, this achieving their desired outcome). But the thing is, making a check is actually a pretty inefficient way to do this, because a check has a chance of failure (even if it may only be a small chance on a check you have a high bonus to). Fortunately, you don’t have to rely on making checks to achieve your desired outcomes. You can instead take actions that you think might result in the achievement of your desired outcome. Worst case scenario, you might have to make a roll to see if it works. Best case scenario, it just works.

 

[HammerMan]

So if this is the case, and in your games the player determines how the character reacts to the attempt at intimidation (as you have said is the case)… What exactly are you using the result of the roll to determine?

It is binary, it is intimidate or no. I don't see the issue. it is the exact same skill not mind control

Umm… When did that happen? I don’t think that has happened in this conversation.

I wish I could go back and quote him but I can't he said that charisma skills said that they did not work on PCs and we only found that in the 3e PHB not the 5e... in this edition there is no carve out or exception for cha ability checks to only work on NPCs. I will admit if you read it as he does (1st that it is mind control and you get what you want 100% of the time you hit the DC) (it would mind control a PC as it does NPCs) (Therefore forces a PC to take an action with no save) then I can even somewhat understand it...but it still isn't CLOSE to my reading of teh RAW