D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

In 5e, the stakes of success and failure are clearly laid out (or at least should be) by the DM ahead of time based on the goal and approach of the PC. A roll only happens when there is a chance for success, a chance for failure, and a meaningful consequence for failure. Some DMs share the stakes before the player rolls. Some do not. No rationalization post-roll needs to happen, though.

Sure it does - if the roll fails you-as-DM need to know a) why it failed and b) whether this would be obvious to the PCs.

The results and rationale of failng to climb a wall would usually be obvious, e.g. you used a loose stone as a handhold, the stone crashed to the ground and you almost followed it. The results of trying to talk past a guard not so much - sure she says "No" but there's a rationale behind that somewhere and you-as-DM need to dream up what it is; and quickly in case the PCs try again, or try a different approach.

You then IMO need to narrate the failure as it appears in the fiction.

I mean, one could add some flair based on the result, but that would just be added description to further flavor the success/failure outcome.

That flavour is the whole point, as it can serve to inform the players/PCs as to why the attempt failed and - maybe - give ideas or clues (be they false or true or both!) as to what to do next.

 

[Charlaquin]

the same way I do when my NPCs under my control are intimidated, or any other player/dm...

Which is… what? What are you using the ability check to actually decide, if not how well the character performing the action does, and not how the character being targeted by the action reacts to it?

and yet the ONLY place we can find it is... an older edition (something he swears he magically whiped from his mind to read the one true way of 5e)

and yet it is the only carve out we can find.

And again, a carve out is not required to arrive at our interpretation; in fact, it wouldn’t even make sense for there to be one, with the way ability checks work in 5e.

so the skill works, the stat check works the same for players and npcs... so you agree with me?

My stance is that checks are used the same way by the DM whether the character performing the action they are being used to resolve is a PC or an NPC. Specifically, they are used when the outcome of the action is uncertain, which my stance is that it is not when the goal of the action is to force a PC to think, feel, or do something not of the player’s decision.

and even by your reading (declair action, decide if it is possible or not auto fail auto success or not , pick dc, roll) we can show how it can be an NPC making the check

I don’t disagree that NPCs can make checks (or, rather, that checks can be needed to resolve the outcomes of NPC actions).

 

[Charlaquin]

you can't make an NPC do something either

Sure you can. “I threaten to kill him if he doesn’t tell me where the key is” or whatever. It might fail to get them to do that. But it might succeed. That’s what the check determines.

 

[HammerMan]

Sure you can. “I threaten to kill him if he doesn’t tell me where the key is” or whatever. It might fail to get them to do that. But it might succeed. That’s what the check determines.

yes and no, you intimidate them, but that might not make them tell you.. As a PC you can say what you do not how it ends.

 

[iserith]

Why do I get the feeling that a lot of the approaches certain posters are using are really just methods to control players they find problematic? And that they've internalized them to the point where they can't actually see that the rules don't support this because the rules don't actually deal with problems at the level of the players?

 

[Charlaquin]

yes and no, you intimidate them, but that might not make them tell you.. As a PC you can say what you do not how it ends.

Making them tell me was my goal, so if they don’t tell me I have failed to achieve my goal.

This is why goal is an important part of an action declaration. What you’re trying to accomplish matters for determining if a roll is needed. If my approach of telling him I’ll kill him if he doesn’t cooperate can’t succeed at my goal of getting him to tell me where the key is, no roll is necessary. You can just narrate how he reacts.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

so in your mind do you tell the PC IF you make the DC XX this happens if you don't that happens? or do you wait to see if they pass or not?

It's not only in my mind, I say it out loud to the players at our table.

Player wants their PC to do A to accomplish B. I, as DM, decide the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. I tell them the DC is XX. On a success, B (or something close to B) will happen. On a failure, C happens! (Alternatively, if B is essential, I go with success with a setback which works out as: on a failure, B or something close to B happens and, also, C!)

 

[Charlaquin]

It's not only in my mind, I say it out loud to the players at our table.

Player wants their PC to do A to accomplish B. I, as DM, decide the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. I tell them the DC is XX. On a success, B (or something close to B) will happen. On a failure, C happens! (Alternatively, if B is essential, I go with success with a setback which works out as: on a failure, B or something close to B happens and, also, C!)

I will note that while I think this is best practice, I believe the rules are silent on whether or not the DM should tell the players the DC and potential consequences. Unless it’s suggested somewhere that I missed.

 

[HammerMan]

Which is… what? What are you using the ability check to actually decide, if not how well the character performing the action does, and not how the character being targeted by the action reacts to it?

again the same as climbing the mountain.

The PC can't say "I rip off the bar and open the door" (I mean they can say it, but the Str/athletics check can say they ripp the bar off and it still be magically sealed)
The PC can't say that intimidating them will make them talk (again educated guess would be yes, and they can assume, but it is up to the DM)

And again, a carve out is not required to arrive at our interpretation; in fact, it wouldn’t even make sense forbtherewith the way ability checks work in 5e.

they work when we have a moment in fiction where something can succeed but isn't guaranteed to succeed and we need a neutral abirture because there is a meaningful results form a pass/fail... (I wouldn't normally describe it that way but that is teh best we have come to in thread)

My stance is that checks are used the same way by the DM whether the character performing the action they are being used to resolve is a PC or an NPC.

perfect we agree.

Specifically, they are used when the outcome of the action is uncertain,

yup see my wordy description right above here on track...

which my stance is that it is not when the goal of the action is to force a PC to think, feel, or do something not of the player’s decision.

ow we added FEEL now, that changes things... feel can be a sense or a response. I can feel something is off (outside my control) I can feel feed up with having to keep explaining myself (50/50 here) or I can feel happy (I think minus magic 100% in control of the player) we have been using think to avoid the 'feel' issue of English words being complex.

However if YOU decided that in YOUR games that is never a possibility or uncertainty that is fine... it isn't RAW, but it is fine, I even understand how you interpret it that way, even if I don't. -Raw is anything can be uncertain and it is up to the DM, my own house rules would replace DM with table, but I think that is clear-

I don’t disagree that NPCs can make checks (or, rather, that checks can be needed to resolve the outcomes of NPC actions).

Okay, so we both feel that NPC can make any check a PC can, we just disagree on the fact that in your reading 1 sub set of attribute checks is something that can not be used becuse you (within your right as a DM) have decided and ruled it can never be uncertain.

DO you understand why that seems like a carve out by other words (and a much more complex work around to get to it)?

 

[HammerMan]

Making them tell me was my goal, so if they don’t tell me I have failed to achieve my goal.

yes and I can say my goal in climbing the tree is to find out the NPCs true name... climbing the tree might even be a roll (str/athletics) but it doesn't let me narrate that I now know the true name...

This is why goal is an important part of an action declaration

I agree it is important to understand, I don't think it always needs to be outright stated, but I agree it needs to be understood.

. What you’re trying to accomplish matters for determining if a roll is needed.

"I climb the tree to find the clue" "There is no clue up there, but roll for athletics to climb the tree"
is no different then "I intimidate them to talk" "You can roll to intimidate them but that wont gurantee they will talk"

the only difference is the first is crazy and the second you can make an educated guess on.

If my approach of telling him I’ll kill him if he doesn’t cooperate can’t succeed at my goal of getting him to tell me where the key is, no roll is necessary.

unless there are other consequences to intimidating him...

You can just narrate how he reacts.

unless there is uncertentiy... fail he laughs at you succseeds he start blubbering and you can't understand him as he cries... still a roll, no result is the one you want...