D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

Funny, Jeremy Crawford said RAI is that you can’t make a PC do something with an ability check

you can't make an NPC do something either

 

[Swarmkeeper]

you can't make an NPC do something either

But the DM will lay out the possible outcomes of a check that a PC makes against an NPC, right?
So, in effect, while limited by what the DM feels is appropriate, the declared approach and goal of the PC will have an effect on said NPC if the player is successful on the ability check. That successful roll makes the NPC do something reasonably related to the PC's goal.

TL;DR: disagree

 

[Bill Zebub]

Then how come, after using this method for the last 6 months, there have been zero arguments at our table? I mean, this is in a West Marches campaign with 3 different DMs and 14 additional players? Is my table an outlier? Or is the 5e DMG variant on "Player's Award Inspiration" ok after all?

Bear in mind that lanefan plays in a group where players pass notes to the DM accusing each other of cheating. So their mileage may seriously vary.

 

[HammerMan]

But the DM will lay out the possible outcomes of a check that a PC makes against an NPC, right?

I do not understand this question

So, in effect, while limited by what the DM feels is appropriate, the declared approach and goal of the PC will have an effect on said NPC if the player is successful on the ability check. That successful roll makes the NPC do something reasonably related to the PC's goal.

I am not following

TL;DR: disagree

Okay we can both just read it our own ways

 

[Bill Zebub]

you can't make an NPC do something either

Right!

But you can describe an attempt to do so, and the DM has authority over whether or not you succeed. But you haven’t forced the NPC to do it, the way you would with (for example) a Dominate spell.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

This is an example of where a player IMO should be allowed to call for a check.

If the DM narrates what an NPC says and tacks on afterwards that said NPC fidgeted and looked uncomfortable while saying it, a player should right there be able to call for an Insight (or similar) check to determine if the PC suspects (or can prove) a lie. And sure, the player can declare an action even as simple as an in-character "I don't believe this stuff - I think he's lying"; but that puts it back onto the DM to allow the check and if she doesn't (e.g. the NPC was in fact lying but for plot reasons the DM wants the NPC's lie to stand) you're out of luck.

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."

There's nothing wrong with pixel-hunting. My take is that the players should have a bit more control over what pixels they hunt and how they do so; and allowing them to proactively call for checks (after clearly describing what they're doing in the fiction, of course) gives them that bit more control.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Right!

But you can describe an attempt to do so, and the DM has authority over whether or not you succeed. But you haven’t forced the NPC to do it, the way you would with (for example) a Dominate spell.

Same goal as me. Better approach.

 

[HammerMan]

Right!

But you can describe an attempt to do so, and the DM has authority over whether or not you succeed. But you haven’t forced the NPC to do it, the way you would with (for example) a Dominate spell.

okay, same thing with the PC...

 

[Lanefan]

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.

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.

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? 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?

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

It might. Or, if there's any sort of language barrier it might mean the PC unintentionally said something offensive or insulting. Or it might mean the guard's seen this crap before and tells the PC to bugger off before six words get out of his mouth*. Or it might mean the guard is really only accepting bribes today - no bribe, no entry - and trying to just talk your way past is likely to get you nowhere. Or .....

* - this would probably be the one I'd use first.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It might. Or, if there's any sort of language barrier it might mean the PC unintentionally said something offensive or insulting. Or it might mean the guard's seen this crap before and tells the PC to bugger off before six words get out of his mouth*.

These sound like good failure states for an ability check. Although the second one might require some awkward retconning of the fiction if the player was more detailed than 5 words in playing out the scene - otherwise, auto-fail during the description: No roll.

Or it might mean the guard is really only accepting bribes today - no bribe, no entry - and trying to just talk your way past is likely to get you nowhere. Or .....

This one, to be sure, would not have requires a roll in 5e. The outcome was certain. A player describing their PC trying to talk their way past the guard would be met with an auto-fail and not a request from the DM to make an ability check.

* - this would probably be the one I'd use first.