D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

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.”

I only give him an issue becuse he preaches that he has been handed down from on high the one true reading of the rules and everyone else is wrong.

Skills are not character tools.

no they are tools of the game... that players have, technically you are right no character has that tool, but like every other pick and peice of this argument, you knew what I meant, and in common english character tool is close enough

They are a source of bonuses on ability checks, and ability checks are how the DM determines the outcome of uncertain actions.

yup so if the DM rules something is possible but uncertain you roll an ability check (or attack roll or what ever, before you word police this too)

What a player wants when they try to “use a skill” is to achieve a certain outcome.

yes one that in game the character is good at, regardless of how well the player can do it or describe it.

Making a check is actually a pretty inefficient way to do this, because it has a chance of failure.

unless you rule that someone has to describe it out of game when you know they can't or wont... then the check is better then "I can't"

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 accomplishment of your desired outcome.

yes and I intimidate the orc is a declaration of action. I say things to persuade the guard is too.

now you are going to come back and ask how and what they say... when no rule says they have to say how or what they say. Especially if the person controlling the character can not or will not

Worst case scenario, you might have to make a roll to see if it works. Best case scenario, it just works.

same with every game I have run of 5e...

"I persuade the guard to let us by"
"Your a cha character trained in persuasion, no problem"

is as likely as
"I persuade the guard to let us by"
"let me set the DC for you to roll"

but is also (albe it less likely)
"I persuade the guard to let us by"
"You have convinced him you need to get by but he doesn't have the authority, so he calls for the captain"

or also less likely
"I persuade the guard to let us by"
"no, the guards are not going to be talked into letting you in"

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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

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

So you believe that you can have a NPC roll a social ability check to intimidate a PC for... what exactly? A house-ruled degree of intimidation. And then, as you've said before, you have the player interpret how they want their PC to react (which seems to resonate with the roleplaying rules/guidance on p185).

So... what exactly was the roll for? So you could use your house-rule to describe the level of intimidation? What does that even matter if the player controls the reaction of the PC in the end?

If you didn't use a house-rule to describe the degree of intimidation, what would happen in this scenario?

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Hang on, I thought you said the player decides how their character reacts to the intimidation in your games. Now you’re saying the roll has a binary result - the NPC succeeds at intimidating the PC or fails to do so. How do you square that with the player getting to decide how their character reacts?

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...

I remember the exchange you’re referring to, but @iserith didn’t quote 3e in that exchange. Someone else quoted the 3e PHB to demonstrate that, in 3e, it was explicitly the case that social skill checks couldn’t cause PCs to do something the player doesn’t want their character to do. That doesn’t mean that source is where @iserith is getting the idea that actions made to force a character to decide something out of the player’s control don’t have an uncertain outcome in 5e. In fact, I would wager @iserith wasn’t even aware of the 3e quote in question, since they haven’t played or run 3e in a long time.

Furthermore, the 3e quote in question wouldn’t even make sense in the context of 5e, where ability checks are part of the action resolution process rather than actions in and of themselves. It made sense in 3e, where skill checks were things you could just do.

in this edition there is no carve out or exception for cha ability checks to only work on NPCs.

And no one is arguing that there is.

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

It also isn’t even close to our reading, which again, doesn’t treat ability checks as discrete actions, but as a part of the process of resolving actions.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The lesson on fidgeting here is that if you are at @Lanefan’s table and you fidget, you will be accused of just trying to get an in-game advantage instead of playing your character.

 

[Lanefan]

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?

Seriously - you support cheating in the game??? That doesn't sound like you, somehow.

'Cause that's how "not doing anything about it" reads, when applied to both cheating and seeking advantage whcih the quoted post referred to.

As fro playing to eke out the advantages, to me part of a player's job is to search for whatever advantages they can find. By the same token, it's the DM's job to - if not outright stop them - at least police things via rulings or houserules or whatever such that the advantages don't get too out of whack in terms of either character balance or the game itself.

With the intimidate/persuasion issue the player in me is saying there's an advantage to be had by ignoring these things when applied to my PC, and the DM in me is saying there's two easy ways to mitigate or negate that advantage; one being to give those effects some mechanical heft such that players have to roleplay those effects, and the other being to do away with those abilities entirely for PC and NPC alike.

 

[Lanefan]

The lesson on fidgeting here is that if you are at @Lanefan’s table and you fidget, you will be accused of just trying to get an in-game advantage instead of playing your character.

Nah - if you're fidgeting at my table chances are that just means you're out of beer and would like another.

 

[HammerMan]

So you believe that you can have a NPC roll a social ability check to intimidate a PC for... what exactly? A house-ruled degree of intimidation. And then, as you've said before, you have the player interpret how they want their PC to react (which seems to resonate with the roleplaying rules/guidance on p185).

I believe that when we have an in game skill test of any type the DM can call for an ability check or contest. I believe that it doesn't take control of the PC/NPC and give it to the winner of the skill, the owner of the character still decides what they do and how they react.

So... what exactly was the roll for?

the same as any other ability check to test for the ______ of the PC/NPC

So you could use your house-rule to describe the level of intimidation? What does that even matter if the player controls the reaction of the PC in the end?

I don't use it often, but when there is a quastion of if someone or something is _____ .

Replace intimidation with any other stat/skill

can the orc climb the cliff? I can story point it, or if it is important and maybe he can maybe he can't I make a str/athletics roll.

TBH I play under DMs that use the social skills WAY more then I do. Mostly those that can not describe an intimidating orc or a seductive bar maid or a persuasive bard... those DMs though play in my game, and I have no problem with them useing there in game skills.

If you didn't use a house-rule to describe the degree of intimidation, what would happen in this scenario?

Okay...

Orc is guarding pie. PC keeps bugging orc, but orc doesn't want to fight, so he is going to try to intimidate them to go away (after telling them just go away a few times) I say he growls. this is not (DOn't just please don't go back to this) an auto matic sucess or fail, and we need to know if the orc is actually scary or not... so I set a DC (no I can't give you a DC, look up how to set them) roll and pass/fail
fail: Player is told orc failed to intimidate them and they react
pass: Player is told orc succeed to intimdate them and they react.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Claiming it themselves would open up a whole other can o' worms, in that some players would constantly be claiming it while others - the more reticent ones, or those less confident in their roleplaying - rarely if ever would.

End result: arguments; and all of them preventable by simply not using such a system.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This really isn't that hard.

The GM is the one who decides whether there is uncertainty to warrant a roll and they decide what the stakes of the roll are. Some vague generic waffling about what roleplaying is doesn't change that.

I understand that some people think that they have cracked the secret code of the holy text and found the one true meaning of the rules. But the reality the rules are intentionally malleable and they're just using their preferred approach just like the rest of us. But of course once you attach your forum identity to being the prophet of the one true reading and everyone else's being house rules, it becomes rather hard to back down from that...

We had this same song and dance in the trap thread a while a go, and showing that the examples given the rules didn't match the pixel-hunty level of detail required by some didn't make them back down from insisting that their reading was the only correct one.

 

[Charlaquin]

I only give him an issue becuse he preaches that he has been handed down from on high the one true reading of the rules and everyone else is wrong.

no they are tools of the game... that players have, technically you are right no character has that tool, but like every other pick and peice of this argument, you knew what I meant, and in common english character tool is close enough

No, it isn’t “close enough” because the distinction makes a meaningful difference in how we are using these tools in the game. As long as you are thinking of skills as something the player uses, you’re going to continue to misunderstand where we’re coming from. Even if you treat them that way (which is fine! You are perfectly welcome to do that!), if you try to frame what we’re saying in those terms, you’re going to draw erroneous conclusions.

yup so if the DM rules something is possible but uncertain you roll an ability check (or attack roll or what ever, before you word police this too)

Mhmm.

yes one that in game the character is good at, regardless of how well the player can do it or describe it.

Sure, but that’s still a greater chance of failure than automatic success, which you cut yourself off from the possibility of by jumping straight to making a check.

unless you rule that someone has to describe it out of game when you know they can't or wont... then the check is better then "I can't"

Literally the “how to play” section in the very beginning of the PHB says the players describe what they want to do. If you can’t or won’t do that… I really can’t help you.

yes and I intimidate the orc is a declaration of action. I say things to persuade the guard is too.

now you are going to come back and ask how and what they say... when no rule says they have to say how or what they say.

I’m going to do no such thing. You don’t have to say exactly what your character says. You just have to express what you want to achieve (so the DM can assess what the results of success will be) and what your character does to try and achieve it (so the DM can assess if that could achieve your goal or not, if it has meaningful stakes, and how difficult it might be). So, for example, “I try to get the orc to run away by threatening him” or “I try to convinve the guard to let us in by telling him how important our mission is.”

Especially if the person controlling the character can not or will not

Again, I don’t get this. If you can’t or won’t describe what you want to do, why are you playing a game where describes that’s literally laid out in the description of how to play? That’s like playing monopoly but saying you can’t or won’t handle fake money.