D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

And that, like choosing the path less traveled, made all the difference.

Why? The action is declared and resolved, the resolution method is immaterial.

Perhaps one wants to actively discourage slapstick?

Not me.

99+% of the time I just don't take the game seriously enough to want to deny opportunities for humour and whimsy in it; and sometimes laughing at the boneheads we call our PCs, and the things they do, is part of that humour.

So, yeah, trying to jump to the moon might never even attempt to happen. What else would you like to try?

I'll jump to the sun, then. I thought I'd start small but clearly I have to go for the gusto here.

A check with the only consequence being “maintaining the status quo” is a check best avoided, IMO. It’s frustrating to take the time and effort to make a check and then fail to move the action forward for better or for worse. Really, why bother? YMMV.

Why bother? Because of the meaningfulness of success, is why.

If you know the McGuffin you seek is behind a locked/barred/held/stuck door then an attempt to open said door is likely to result in some sort of check where success is meaningful and failure means nothing happens. The only meaningful consequence for failure comes after a string of failures add up to say you're just not getting through this door no way no how, that consequence being a corollary failure of the overall mission to retrieve the McGuffin.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Why? The action is declared and resolved, the resolution method is immaterial.

Not me.

99+% of the time I just don't take the game seriously enough to want to deny opportunities for humour and whimsy in it; and sometimes laughing at the boneheads we call our PCs, and the things they do, is part of that humour.

For sure. Not saying that’s not a fun way to play. I love the funny moments at our table. But they don’t happen due to the players declaring impossible actions.

I'll jump to the sun, then. I thought I'd start small but clearly I have to go for the gusto here.

Why bother? Because of the meaningfulness of success, is why.

if the success is so important, can’t you, as DM, come up something, anything, as a setback other than “nothing happens” on a failure? Surely you are a capable, experienced, creative DM. I know you are - I’ve seen your contributions here for years.

If you know the McGuffin you seek is behind a locked/barred/held/stuck door then an attempt to open said door is likely to result in some sort of check where success is meaningful and failure means nothing happens. The only meaningful consequence for failure comes after a string of failures add up to say you're just not getting through this door no way no how, that consequence being a corollary failure of the overall mission to retrieve the McGuffin.

How… underwhelming. I mean, nothing else is happening in the scene? Nothing at all? I’m glad 5e introduced the concept of meaningful consequence for failure so the players can expect something to happen besides “door still won’t budge” after the 1st, 2nd… and xth failure of an ability check.

 

[Charlaquin]

Exactly!

It's related whenever a DM decides that there is a challenge bearing on such a case. That's the only test.

Thats disanalogous. In the first scenario it’s the player deciding what their character thinks, says, or does and an obstacle introduces uncertainty into whether or not they will succeed. In the second, it’s some other character deciding what the player’s character will think, say, or do if they succeed, which would violate PHB 185.

There is no carve-out.

It’s really frustrating that you keep saying this when my argument neither asks for nor requires a carve-out.

Something that might otherwise be certain, isn't certain when a DM decides it isn't (through the mechanism of establishing a challenge.)

A challenge can introduce uncertainty into the outcome of an action that would otherwise succeed due to lack of ability to fail or lack of meaningful stakes. It can’t introduce uncertainty into the outcome of an action that would otherwise fail due to being unable to succeed - if the player declares they try to jump to the moon, the DM can’t make the outcome of that action uncertain by making it more challenging. Likewise, if a player decides what their character does, an attempt to make them do something not of the player’s decision can’t succeed (unless the player decides it does), so introducing a challenge can’t make success possible when it wouldn’t otherwise be.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Fine.

However, this doesn't need formal rules. A informal and self-informative roll by the indecisive party will do for this (side note: I'd like the books to give more guidance on the idea of self-informative rolls as an aid to decision-making).

Having hard-coded social skills and abilities spelled out on the character sheet and in the books just confuses the whole issue and directly leads to near-endless discussions and arguments - - - like this thread.

Sure, but the “rules” are informal…

• Only call for a roll if you want to
• pick whatever attribute you want
• add a skill proficiency if it feels applicable
• mix and match attributes/skills if you don’t like the official combination
• choose a DC based on…vague terms

In other words, do whatever the %#¥? you want.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Indeed. The text clearly says that the GM decides when to call checks and what their outcomes are.

Except that those rules specifically apply when a PC attempts something, and to extrapolate to an NPC we have to go back to the beginning of this thread.

See? Circular!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except that those rules specifically apply when a PC attempts something, and to extrapolate to an NPC we have to go back to the beginning of this thread.

Nope:

An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge.

See? Circular!

Glad you admit it!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Glad you admit it!

I freely admit that I have to explain simple things over and over, like a carousel going around.

 

[Charlaquin]

I freely admit that I have to explain simple things over and over, like a carousel going around.

 

[Lanefan]

if the success is so important, can’t you, as DM, come up something, anything, as a setback other than “nothing happens” on a failure?

I don't think I need to when "nothing happens" is the failure.

Surely you are a capable, experienced, creative DM. I know you are - I’ve seen your contributions here for years.

Thanks!

How… underwhelming. I mean, nothing else is happening in the scene? Nothing at all? I’m glad 5e introduced the concept of meaningful consequence for failure so the players can expect something to happen besides “door still won’t budge” after the 1st, 2nd… and xth failure of an ability check.

Well, and much to @Charlaquin 's disapproval, I run it that you only get one roll unless you try a different approach or something materially changes. There's no rerolls, no take-10 or take-20, or anything like that.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't think I need to when "nothing happens" is the failure.

How is it a meaningful consequence" if the PCs are in the exact same position they were in before they tried?

If nothing else, an advantage of genuinely meaningful consequences is that it creates a natural gating mechanism to multiple attempts, without artificial "because you can't" reasons. So when the rogue fails to pick the lock and says, "Well, can I try again?" you don't have to make up some b.s. reason.

It also prevents "Well, I may as well try..." and the dreaded "Can I try, too?" (And pretty soon everybody is
"rolling History", even though the DC is 20.)