D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

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

It really depends on the position that they were in before they tried. Suppose a group of heroes is being chased by 100 orcs across a field and they come to a 20 foot wall that they have to climb in a hurry. A failure that leaves them on the same side of the wall as the orcs(same position as before they tried) is a meaningful consequence of that failure. The same group coming to the same wall with no pressure shouldn't have to even roll. They're going to eventually get across and a failure means nothing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It really depends on the position that they were in before they tried. Suppose a group of heroes is being chased by 100 orcs across a field and they come to a 20 foot wall that they have to climb in a hurry. A failure that leaves them on the same side of the wall as the orcs(same position as before they tried) is a meaningful consequence of that failure. The same group coming to the same wall with no pressure shouldn't have to even roll. They're going to eventually get across and a failure means nothing.

If they used up precious time (either because the DM is tracking time, or they are already using combat turns), then yes. But if the game state is literally exactly the same as it was before they tried, with all the same options open to them, then there is no meaningful consequence.

The basic test is if there is any incentive to not try. If there is literally no reason to not try something, then by definition there's no meaningful consequence to failure.

And, as I said, that in itself is a good argument for meaningful consequences: there's little I hate more at the table than players saying, "I guess I'll try, too..." as they reach for their dice.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.)

Technically, since @Lanefan rules that you can’t attempt a failed action again until circumstances change, “nothing happens” is a meaningful consequence because it means now nothing can happen, unless you try a different approach.

 

[clearstream]

So the conclusion I would draw from this is, If an action would cause a character to think, act, or talk in a specific way, the player determines if it succeeds in doing so.

The conclusion I draw is that players decide how their characters think, act, and talk. I don't add words to the text to make it that they have any role in deciding how to apply the rules. Many lines expressly give that to the DM, so to conclude that the opposite is implied in this line is contrary to the holistic analysis you claimed to be making. Were your view true it would be an overturning of much elsewhere, so can you find any other lines elsewhere supporting that players sometimes determine how actions are resolved?

I can’t help but notice that you didn’t provide the exact quote here like you did for the others. “This book contains rules, especially in parts 2 and 3, that govern how the game plays. That said, many racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and other game elements break the general rules in some way, creating an exception to how the rest of the game works. Remember this: If a specific rule contradicts a general rule, the specific rule wins.” Notably, the actual quote does distinguish between the general rules and game elements that break the general rules. The rules for skills are in section 2, which is noted as especially being where the general rules are found, and they are not racial traits, class features, spells, magic items, or monster abilities.

Especially.

The player decides how their character thinks, acts, and talks, which means if an action would cause a character to think, act, or talk in a way contrary to the player’s decision, it is not uncertain and the text we have reviewed so far would not support them in calling for an ability check to resolve it.

Unless their DM decides a challenge is involved, which the text endorses them to do.

 

[clearstream]

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

I and other posters have noted you rely on special carve outs. Seeing as you won't abandon relying on them, I am forced to mark them.

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.

Agreed.

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.

DM decides what the challenge is, and taking the text holistically there is ample support for them determining the degree of challenge. Normally, jumping to the Moon is impossible. On this occasion, the factors contributing to that impossibility are either not all present, or overridden by some other factor.

Again, you want to read leagues into 185, with no corroborating text elsewhere, while ignoring pages of text empowering DM to decide on circumstances and say how anything characters attempt will be resolved.

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.

Answered above. We need to be careful about taking the broadest possible reading of text we like, and the most miserly reading of text we don't like. I do it too. Hence we should reinforce our readings by looking at the text holistically. What text elsewhere supports our reading of the text at hand?

 

[clearstream]

People brought guidelines into this discussion like they were less than rules. I pointed out that in 5e rules and guidelines are interchangeable and equal. Then I pointed out that there are some things that are advice, like the Wizard background and the advice in the ability check section that suggest some things the DM might call an ability check for, and other things like page 185 and 174 of the PHB that are prescriptive and definitive.

My opinion is that advice is lesser to things that are prescribed or defined.

DMG calls 185 out as less than rules, so if we're back to counting weight, you can't help yourself to counting 185 equal to rules text.

Sorry, 174.

NP I wasn't trying to be pedantic. I thought you might have spotted something additional.

"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."

That's prescriptive. It tells the DM to call for a check(not maybe or might) WHEN there is a chance of failure and the outcome is uncertain. It's not a suggestion or advice.

When the cat bothers you, put it outside. But what decides when the cat bothers you?

 

[clearstream]

You don’t decide whether another person pushes you or not. That’s something happening to your character, not an action your character performs.

So is it right that you narrow the applicability of 185 to just actions your character performs (and by implication just thoughts your character has, and speech-acts they make)? Producing a subtle distinction between forcing your character deeper underwater using strength, and forcing them to propel themselves deeper underwater using charisma. The cases are not differentiated on outcome, or even necessarily on method of resolution.

This seems to be about volition, but if that is right why need that intrude on resolution? A character can enjoy volition without controlling resolution. We simply avoid overriding their volition when we apply the outcome, just as I described.

You pit your strength against the mermaid's strength. You pit your will against her will. The former we let force because volition plays no part, the latter we narrate but do not let force because we do not override volition.

 

[Lanefan]

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

They haven't advanced, and have taken themselves out of an opportunity to advance.

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.

I don't have to make up a b.s. reason because the answer to "Can I try again" is "Sure, but unless you do something significantly different the roll you already made holds true, and represents your best attempt no matter how many times you try."

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.)

What I often do there is for something like history or knowledge I'll give rolls to those who ought to know and then a generic roll for the rest of the party put together in case someone unlikely just happens to know or remember the info.

So, in a typical-for-me large party trying to recall history or knowledge about a Dwarven artifact called the Crown of Talarthane it might go something like:

Wizard: "I've some knowledge of Dwarven history and I might have learned something about that Crown during my eduction."
DM: "OK, it's pretty obscure - hit a DC 15 knowledge check on history. Also Tazkar, you're a Dwarf, you might have heard about this Crown somewhere along the line before you started adventuring - give yourself the same roll" (both rolls fail)
DM: "Right, how about someone do a generic DC 20 roll for the rest of you combined, to see if this info has randomly crossed your path at some point?" (if this roll fails as well then they're going to have to proactively seek out this info somehow if they want it)

(note: were this my game the above assumes there's no Bard in the party, as the Bardic ability Legend-Lore is usually the first go-to for this kind of thing)

 

[Lanefan]

If they used up precious time (either because the DM is tracking time, or they are already using combat turns), then yes. But if the game state is literally exactly the same as it was before they tried, with all the same options open to them, then there is no meaningful consequence.

Except once they're tried and failed approach A, approach A becomes an option that is no longer available to them - they've blown it - which means all the same options are not open to them.

The basic test is if there is any incentive to not try. If there is literally no reason to not try something, then by definition there's no meaningful consequence to failure.

In cases like this I see the meaningful part happening if they succeed, not if they fail.

And, as I said, that in itself is a good argument for meaningful consequences: there's little I hate more at the table than players saying, "I guess I'll try, too..." as they reach for their dice.

If it makes in-fiction sense that everyone in the party gets a roll if they each try to remember something then they all get a roll, simple as that. An example might be remembering some obscure bit of local history, if the PCs all grew up in the area then each would get a roll. A much more common example in my games is the party trying to remember some obscure or trivial-then-but-important-now bit of info that came up during a prior adventure that nobody (either in character or out) wrote down.

I'll adjust the relative difficulty if it suits, though. For example, if the party are 5 locals and a foreigner the rolls in the local-history example for the locals might be, say, DC 12 where for the foreigner it'd be "Sure, go ahead and roll but don't get your hopes up - on a natural 20 you might have heard a snippet".

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Technically, since @Lanefan rules that you can’t attempt a failed action again until circumstances change, “nothing happens” is a meaningful consequence because it means now nothing can happen, unless you try a different approach.

Of course. Different editions, different rulings. What works well in one edition isn’t guaranteed to work well in another. Silly @Swarmkeeper, 1e rules are for 1e!