D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

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."

Even this isn’t so much a degrees of success/quality thing, it’s just a critical fumble rule. I’ve actually started thinking about implementing such a rule myself, despite having formerly been very vocal against critical fumble rules. But I’ve reconsidered recently because I’ve been thinking about item breakage. In the right campaign, I think having to maintain your equipment to avoid it breaking could be an interesting gameplay element, and critical hits and fumbles seem like a fairly unobtrusive way to introduce that breakage chance. But it’s still a half-formed idea, and whatever I come up with (if I explore the idea further) will distinctly be a house rule.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Even this isn’t so much a degrees of success/quality thing, it’s just a critical fumble rule. I’ve actually started thinking about implementing such a rule myself, despite having formerly been very vocal against critical fumble rules. But I’ve reconsidered recently because I’ve been thinking about item breakage. In the right campaign, I think having to maintain your equipment to avoid it breaking could be an interesting gameplay element, and critical hits and fumbles seem like a fairly unobtrusive way to introduce that breakage chance. But it’s still a half-formed idea, and whatever I come up with (if I explore the idea further) will distinctly be a house rule.

Oh, most definitely.

If it helps your brainstorming, our current campaign uses crit fails in combat only. Only 1 per turn (so as to not penalize multi attack, action surge, haste, and the like). And, the player imposes the punishment on themselves. I’ve seen damaged weapons, stuck weapons, hitting self, just looking silly, falling prone…

 

[clearstream]

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. ...

PHB 174 establishes that - The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. This is silent on who decides that an outcome is uncertain.

DMG 237 establishes that a DM should - Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work? If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. A DM consults themselves, in making their decision.

PHB 6 establishes that - the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions. Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. DM can decide that a challenge makes something that would otherwise be certain, uncertain.

PHB 185 establishes that - Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks. Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game, and it comes to the fore during social interactions.

And for completeness we have the Sage Advice - An NPC ability check can't force a PC to think/feel/do/sense something.

PHB 7 - Specific Beats General - can among other things create an exception that makes something that would be certain, uncertain, or that forces a PC to think, feel, do, or sense something. This is silent on who decides when that applies.

DMG 5 - Master of Rules. DM decides when and how to apply the rules.

A possible exit to our dilemma is this. Determining how your character thinks, acts, or talks is not the same as determining means of resolution. Nor is it a general fiat over outcomes. It is a fiat over how those outcomes impact on how your character thinks, acts, or talks. This is consistent with all the text, and requires no circular arguments.

An example, chosen to get at an egregious case and show it to be resolved.

DM The tea-lady glowers, and threatening to revoke your biscuit privileges, wants you to sit back down. Describes circumstances.
PC Is this pre-school? I'm going to stand up to her. Stand up, get it?! Says what they want to attempt.
DM How about those biscuit privileges? Are you just sacrificing those? DM puts something on the line.
PC Yeah, right, and she has that amazing shortbread. Okay, I'm going to sweet talk her some. Chooses their approach.
DM Okay, the challenge here is that this lady has dealt with generations of all-too-clever students like yourself, her fierceness is legendary. It's a contest, your CHA against hers. You can include Persuasion, she includes Intimidation. Roll. Says how it will be resolved.
Rolls - NPC wins.
DM Remember that sweet, sweet shortbread. That's now a thing of the past, and frankly this woman is pretty scary. You might feel somewhat intimidated. Want to sit back down? Narrates outcome.
PC in world 1 - Yeah, okay, I'm sheepish and slink back to my seat. Roleplays taking into account the outcome.
PC in world 2 - Nah, I stay right where I am. Roleplays, applying their PHB 185 fiat.

So adjusting my answer to @Swarmkeeper - on balance, the whole text gives it to DM to decide there are factors that make something a player character attempts uncertain, and if so at DM's discretion call for an ability check. Players don't get to decide how outcomes are reached (how they are resolved) only how their character thinks, acts, or talks. Unless there is a set limit or s>g exception, a game outcome can't override how their character thinks, acts and talks. At the same time, DM, not player, is master of rules.

For me it helps to make sure the basic loop, described right up-front in PHB 6, is followed thoughtfully. Frame interactions from the point of view of what the player characters are attempting: they are the protagonists. Explain what the challenges are, what's at stake, etc, and then as DM decide how that will be resolved. That yields good consistency with the text as a whole. @Maxperson @Bill Zebub @Lyxen for vis.

 

[Maxperson]

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 isn't how it goes, though. You don't ever decide what affects or does not affect you until AFTER the attempt begins. The circularity is a Strawman argument. You're changing our argument and then coming to a conclusion based on your changes.

Our argument is. Social skill is used --> Player makes decision yes or no based on the page 185 rule --> since the outcome is not uncertain no roll is made. It's a completely linear progression.

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.

I do the same.

• Hence, there are lots of uncertainties about this, so I will roll.

Which is a fine way to play, but that's not how skills work as written. The uncertainty in RAW that determines if a roll is needed is purely outcome. Does it succeed or fail. Nothing else. If you don't know if it will succeed or fail prior to the roll, then it is uncertain. If you do, it is not.

The variables in descriptions, capabilities and perception aren't determined by the roll, nor in the case of RAW do they determine the success or failure of social skills used by NPCs against PCs.

• 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.

What I do is just look at the circumstances on both sides(PC/NPC) and then choose a description based on that. The NPC is going to do his best, which may be colored by circumstances and perception. Maybe the NPC is so frustrated about something that he screams as he charges. I may describe that as an intimidation attempt even though it isn't. The PC isn't necessarily going to know why the NPC is screaming as he charges, so his perception of what is going on is going to be a bit different than the game reality.

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...

Which again is fine, but not what the book says the roll is for. The roll is purely to see whether the action is ultimately successful or not. It doesn't measure the attempt or degree of success/failure. I wouldn't be upset at a game being run that way(so long as I decide how my PC thinks and acts), but it's not what it written for how to adjudicate ability checks.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

What he is describing is circular, but it's not actually our argument. We aren't running around constantly saying, "I decide that social skills fail." until one is finally used against us. That's just not a first step in any argument we've put forth. The actual use of a social skill is the beginning point and it progresses linearly to the no roll due to no certainty.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

Or, you know, a low roll indicates that you took a long time and made some noise which alerted nearby monsters, and a high roll means you unlocked the door with incredible ease and speed.

 

[Faolyn]

Great! So instead of "he refuses to make eye contact" being a sign of lying, it could also be a sign of spectrum disorder. Now it's not a binary lie detector; it's additional information.

Or any number of things, really. Guilt over something not related to the maybe-lie. A sign of deference. A cultural or social class trait. The individual is looking at something else. Fear because of your race or class and rumors about the powers people have.

But my point is, if the DM isn't supposed to be telling me what my character is thinking, then that's across the board. Tell me the NPC won't look me in the eye, fine. But don't tell me "they won't look me in the eye, and that means lying."

 

[Bill Zebub]

The only circularity is that some people refuse to accept what the text says, so we have to keep repeating ourselves.

 

[Maxperson]

PHB 174 establishes that - The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results. This is silent on who decides that an outcome is uncertain.

The DMG establishes ability checks as guidelines and this if further backed up by the rule in questions using the word "might" indicating that it's just advice on possible things that could be rolled.

DMG 237 establishes that a DM should - Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions: Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure? Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work? If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. A DM consults themselves, in making their decision.

This is a guideline as well per the DMG, but also skips page 173 of the PHB that requires uncertain knowledge of success or failure in order to call for a roll.

PHB 6 establishes that - the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions. Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. DM can decide that a challenge makes something that would otherwise be certain, uncertain.

Subject to other more specific rules/guidelines such as page 185 of the PHB, yes.

PHB 185 establishes that - Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks. Roleplaying is a part of every aspect of the game, and it comes to the fore during social interactions.

And for completeness we have the Sage Advice - An NPC ability check can't force a PC to think/feel/do/sense something.

Correct.

PHB 7 - Specific Beats General - can among other things create an exception that makes something that would be certain, uncertain, or that forces a PC to think, feel, do, or sense something. This is silent on who decides when that applies.

Yes.

DMG 5 - Master of Rules. DM decides when and how to apply the rules.

Yes, but if he contradicts established rules like page 185, he is creating a house rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

Or, you know, a low roll indicates that you took a long time and made some noise which alerted nearby monsters, and a high roll means you unlocked the door with incredible ease and speed.

That’d be progress combined with a setback, which is well-supported as an outcome of a failed roll.