D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

So how exactly would you declare an action with the end goal being to make an Insight check?

You didn’t ask me, but my answer is I would try to declare an action with enough specificity that the DM just gave me the information that I wanted. I don’t want to “make an Insight check”.

 

[Lyxen]

Well, no, it literally can't. It may not use the word "then", but it's an if-then sentence. If this, then that. Choosing "that" first would be to get the order incorrect and therefore would be a misuse of that rule. The circular aspect is a clue that it's not the right(RAW reading) way to do it.

And yet, some people on this thread have used it the other way round saying that because the player decide, it makes the result not uncertain. which in turn prevents the roll, which is no less circular...

Circumstantial game reasons for uncertainty will be decided BEFORE the roll happens. If there are circumstances like being beat to hell, exhausted or whatever, those are examples of things that could put a certain outcome in doubt, requiring a roll. They aren't contradictions to what I am saying or the rule in question.

I'm not saying there is, I'm just pointing out that circumstances, as determined by the DM might change something uncertain to (near) certain, and that a player might not be aware of these circumstances (for example the NPC has a strong like or dislike of the PC or the party).

This falls into the realm of playstyle. Sure, a playstyle can alter the other rules of the game. If you are engaging the roll with it rule, it's a more specific rule than the general one requiring rolls only when the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful chance of failure. It specifically says to roll for just about everything, so that's what you do.

Which is all I'm pointing out, something that might be certain a table might be uncertain at another because they like to roll for many things.

An example of specific beats general doesn't change the ability check rule into a guideline. Not that in 5e a rule isn't a guideline and a guideline isn't a rule. 5e doesn't really differentiate between the two.

That was exactly my point a few posts ago.

I don't think player agency is the reason behind what we are arguing. Player agency certainly touches on it, since allowing the player to decide does give the player more agency, but it's not the motivator. The rule is the motivator.

See the frist example above, which has been used many times in this thread for justifying not using or not rolling social skills against PCs.

As an side, player agency is mentioned in the DMG one time on page 241 when talking about when to award inspiration.

Good point for finding that one, I did not remember it at all, just pointing out that the DMG does not set it up as a pre-requesite of any kind, just an option for having more or less of it depending on the table style, once more a proof of the openness of the game.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not aware of any rules/guidance* that say to tell the players the ability check stakes or not. I choose to tell them. That works well for our table. What do you do?

As @Charlaquin pointed out above

This wasn't directed at me, but sometimes I tell the players the DC and sometimes not. Depends on if it's an important roll and knowing the number will heighted the drama or not. As for the consequences, I'll only tell the player when it's obvious to the PC what they will be. "As you prepare to jump the unusually far distance over the bottomless pit, you know that if you fail no one will ever hear from you again. Your body will never be found." If it isn't obvious to the PC, then I don't tell the player.

 

[Maxperson]

And yet, some people on this thread have used it the other way round saying that because the player decide, it makes the result not uncertain. which in turn prevents the roll, which is no less circular...

It isn't circular at all. Social skill is used on PC --> player decides it fails --> nothing is uncertain --> no roll is made for the skill. It's completely linear. At no time is the lack of roll circling back around to a social skill being used on the PC.

See the frist example above, which has been used many times in this thread for justifying not using or not rolling social skills against PCs.

I don't see that example and I'm waaaaay too tired to look for it.

I'll just say that I remember people talking about losing player agency by not using page 185, but I don't remember arguments that said player agency(as opposed to the rule) was the reason you shouldn't roll. Not that it means much. At more than 100 pages I'm bound to miss things, so I might have missed it somewhere.

 

[Lyxen]

The "outcome was precisely described at the start of the action" by whom? The player?

That's my point, it is not described. You assume that it is, but there is no requirement for it, as per the standard loop. And I've explained that we have banished it from our games, it's not required and it interferes with what the other PCs should know of that is happening. Only the description of the action is required, not the desired outcome. The example given is "We’ll take the east door" without any outcome like "... to avoid / find the goblins". Just the action.

The player should be indicating some idea of the goal the PC is trying to accomplish.

Nope, not required, and actually with consequences.

But it's the DM who decides what actual outcomes are possible when the dice fall, though. I'm clarifying as, while I am not sure we disagree here, I am having trouble understanding what you mean or are implying here.

What I'm saying is that because the (desired) outcome does not have to be described, the DM just has to interpret the success failure of the action described, and he can ascribe any level of progress towards any outcome without being constrained by a specific intent.

Ok, I see now. This answers what I was getting at above. A DM can take into account the result of the dice to describe quality. I've argued previously that this way leads to the possibility of low rolls being described as the PC engaged in some kind of slapstick routine (not a style I want to play - but hey, if that's fun for a table, go for it) and high rolls being described as... well... "You unlocked the crap out of that door!" or similar. Those are optional flourishes, in other words.

Exactly, it absolutely depends on what the table expects and their prefered playstyle, it's not mandated in any way by the rules, that's all.

In our game, I typically will clearly lay out the stakes of ability checks so the players know what is on the line. They then know the success/fail states and the DC, and so can make an informed decision, as a capable adventurer, to continue with the action or not. I typically do not overlay the success or failure with flourishes for exceptionally high or low ability check rolls, though. If I ever do, it usually is to give the player an opportunity to contribute some narrative as to what something (like an acrobatic move) done really well (or really poorly) looked like.

And that is fine if it's your preferred play style, and to be honest, I also do it now and then. There are also many cases, however, where I just trust the player, he he goes for something, it's because he has evaluated his chances as at least fair, and with the level of immersion that we usually have, it means that we are in agreement about the chances and possible consequences of success failure.

I wouldn't choose the words "absolutely supported" in conjunction with a lack of rules. But I catch your meaning.

I think that's what is important, you are right about the wording, I should have used something like "as supported as most other ways of doing it".

"Quality of the result" strikes me as potentially arbitrary in the moment depending on how one runs the game. I see many DMs asking for rolls without providing stakes or DCs and we're left to wonder what any given result will mean after the dice have settled. I personally prefer a style where the DC is announced so the players know if they've succeed or failed in the moment. The anticipation is in how the dice fall rather than in how the DM "reads" them.

You do realise that the DC is in itself absolutely arbitrary in itself ? Everything is arbitrary from the DM's perspective anyway. Also, although I appreciate what you are saying about giving the DC, the rules leave the DM absolutely free there and we prefer not giving the exact DC to avoid any sort of metagaming. At best, we'll give an indication (as per the DMG estimate), but nothing says that the DC is spot on the DMG precise value.

Another angle: if you want to reflect "quality of the result" in play, set multiple DCs ahead of time. I've seen this done in some published adventures where failure by 5 or more has a greater penalty, for example.

That is fine as well, but since we are not giving away the DC anyway, and everything is arbitrary, my point is that giving a quality of result can be done in any sort of different fashions, all supported by the rules (whereas, in some systems for example Runequest, the quality of result is mandated by the dice roll, critical, special, normal, failure, special failure, critical failure, etc.).

I can agree with this as a rulings not rules type of approach. Again, if outcome flourishes described by the dice are fun for the DM and table, use 'em.

Exactly, it all loops back to the DM being dedicated to his players' fun.

 

[Lyxen]

It isn't circular at all. Social skill is used on PC --> player decides it fails --> nothing is uncertain --> no roll is made for the skill. It's completely linear. At no time is the lack of roll circling back around to a social skill being used on the PC.

The circularity is this way: "I decide that nothing can affect a PC" => "Because nothing can affect a PC, nothing is uncertain" => "Because it's not uncertain, don't roll" => "Since there is no roll, it won't affect the PC".

I come from a completely different angle on this, by the way, which is:

• As a DM, I will not force the player to have his character think or act a certain way.
• However, I will create descriptions that match what the NPC is doing, what he is capable of doing, and what the PC is capable of perceiving.
• Hence, there are lots of uncertainties about this, so I will roll.
• The roll will not directly decide what the PC thinks or acts, but the varying decisions will impact the perception of the player and his character, which in turn my affect how the player will decide to have have his character think and act.

Basically the uncertainty is not over the decision taken in the end (which, by the way is exactly the same thing with an NPC), but about whether the attempt at the actual action succeeds or not (and possibly to what degree), since in any case, social skill or not, PC or NPC, that's all what the ability check does, it does not mandate a specific progress, and even a failure does not mean lack of progress, it can still be progress with a consequence...

I'll just say that I remember people talking about losing player agency by not using page 185, but I don't remember arguments that said player agency(as opposed to the rule) was the reason you shouldn't roll. Not that it means much. At more than 100 pages I'm bound to miss things, so I might have missed it somewhere.

Well the "linear reasoning" or my circular one go in that direction, because the player decides whether something succeeds or fails (agency) being the driving force for the reason not to roll.

 

[Charlaquin]

The circularity is this way: "I decide that nothing can affect a PC" => "Because nothing can affect a PC, nothing is uncertain" => "Because it's not uncertain, don't roll" => "Since there is no roll, it won't affect the PC".

That’s not circular though. Each step follows logically from the last. It’s also not accurate to the way those of us arguing the outcome isn’t uncertain. That would be:

Players decide what their characters do => the action would cause the character to do something => the action can therefore only be successful if the player decides it is => the outcome of the action is therefore not uncertain => a roll is therefore not required to determine the outcome.

 

[Lyxen]

That’s not circular though. Each step follows logically from the last.

It's the case when it's circular too, you know.

It’s also not accurate to the way those of us arguing the outcome isn’t uncertain. That would be:

Players decide what their characters do => the action would cause the character to do something

Which is not the case with social skills anyway, for NPCs or PCs.

=> the action can therefore only be successful if the player decides it is => the outcome of the action is therefore not uncertain => a roll is therefore not required to determine the outcome.

Which means that nothing will indeed affect the PC. Circular, it loops on your premise.

The best proof of it is that if you remove your premise, but recognise that without mandatorily changing the way the PC thinks and acts, the result of the check might affect the PC through the description given to the player, the whole edifice comes crashing down.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Nope, not required, and actually with consequences.

I do seem to remember that description you posted upthread where a player indicating their PC's goal/intent for a particular action can cause other players at your table to get upset and/or argue that the PC in question should do something else. Am I remembering that right? I don't see that happening at our table at all when players describe a goal for the PC - so I'm guessing there is another variable at play here.

And that is fine if it's your preferred play style, and to be honest, I also do it now and then. There are also many cases, however, where I just trust the player, he he goes for something, it's because he has evaluated his chances as at least fair, and with the level of immersion that we usually have, it means that we are in agreement about the chances and possible consequences of success failure.

I'm not sure where player trust comes into this. This is about the ability of the DM to fully describe the environment. Since we try to be concise at the table, as no one wants to listen to minutes of DM exposition, the DC provides a shorthand so there is no mismatched expectations about what is about to happen during an ability check.

Of course, it is not required to announce the DC, but I do find it very helpful for game flow.

You do realise that the DC is in itself absolutely arbitrary in itself ? Everything is arbitrary from the DM's perspective anyway. Also, although I appreciate what you are saying about giving the DC, the rules leave the DM absolutely free there and we prefer not giving the exact DC to avoid any sort of metagaming. At best, we'll give an indication (as per the DMG estimate), but nothing says that the DC is spot on the DMG precise value.

I'm not clear how giving the DC encourages metagaming. Can you expound on that?

That is fine as well, but since we are not giving away the DC anyway, and everything is arbitrary, my point is that giving a quality of result can be done in any sort of different fashions, all supported by the rules (whereas, in some systems for example Runequest, the quality of result is mandated by the dice roll, critical, special, normal, failure, special failure, critical failure, etc.).

Again, I wouldn't say "supported" or even "encouraged". I don't believe the core rules say anything on the matter regarding how a DM should or can use the result of the dice to describe the quality or degree of an ability check. So not "mandated", not "supported", but also not wrong if that's how you run it.

The only example that comes to mind is not from the core rule books but from the Curse of Strahd section on using a dash of humor now and then while running this gothic horror campaign: "When a hero, villain, or monster rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, describe a humorous mishap that occurs as a result of the low roll, such as a character accidentally knocking over a lamp and setting some drapes on fire while trying to hide or move silently."

So there's that.

Exactly, it all loops back to the DM being dedicated to his players' fun.

Sing it!

 

[Charlaquin]

It's the case when it's circular too, you know.

But there’s no circle. The logic chain is one straight line.

Which is not the case with social skills anyway, for NPCs or PCs.

Can you cite anywhere in the text where this is written?

Which means that nothing will indeed affect the PC. Circular, it loops on your premise.

No, it very clearly doesn’t.

The best proof of it is that if you remove your premise, but recognise that without mandatorily changing the way the PC thinks and acts, the result of the check might affect the PC through the description given to the player, the whole edifice comes crashing down.

If the action succeeding won’t mandatorily change the way the PC thinks and acts, no ability check is required because ability checks are used to determine if an action succeeds at (or makes progress towards) or fails at (or makes progress combined with a setback towards) it’s goal, not to determine how to describe the action. If you want to make a d20 roll (perhaps weighted by one of the character’s ability modifiers and/or proficiencies) to inform your description of the action you can certainly do that. But that’s not a thing the text instructs you to do.