D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Crimson Longinus]

I don’t really care what you want to call it. It’s part of the text written in the rulebooks. Call it a rule, call it guidance, whatever, it should still inform our understanding of the rules as written.

It doesn't really mean what you think it means. It is not a rule, it is a description. It is crystal clear in the context, as it goes on describing different styles of portraying one's character. It takes wilful misinterpretation and total ignorance of context to read it as anything else.

Yes, when specific rules contradict it, those specific rules take precedence, as per PHB 7, “specific beats general.”

I do not see any part of the rules for ability checks (which PHB 7 seems to define as general rules anyway) that contradicts the statement that the player decides how their character thinks, speaks, and acts.

Indeed there is not contradiction once we understand that 185 is not a rule. And even if it were a rule GMs ability to decide when checks are made and what their consequences are would override it. GM can declare that due an ability check the PC is intimidated, like they could declare that they're charmed due a spell. The player still can decide how their character behaves and how to portray them within those parameters. Vague description of roleplaying doesn't let the player to ignore rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

It doesn't really mean what you think it means. It is not a rule, it is a description.

Again, I don’t really care what you want to call it.

It is crystal clear in the context, as it goes on describing different styles of portraying one's character.

I agree, it is crystal clear in context, hence my clarity in understanding that an ability check is not called for in cases where the outcome of an action would determine how a player’s character thinks, speaks, or acts.

It takes wilful misinterpretation and total ignorance of context to read it as anything else.

No, it takes understanding the rules as a complete text, and not dismissing portions of it as “just a description” or whatever.

Indeed there is not contradiction once we understand that 185 is not a rule. And even if it were a rule GMs ability to decide when checks are made and what their consequences are would override it. GM can declare that due an ability check the PC is intimidated, like they could declare that they're charmed due a spell.

Just like they can declare that the character randomly polymorphs into a moose. What’s relevant is not what the DM can do, but what the text supports them in doing, and ruling uncertainty when the outcome is something that the text says the player decides is not something the text supports.

The player still can decide how their character behaves and how to portray them within those parameters. Vague description of roleplaying doesn't let the player to ignore rules.

“Within those parameters”? Sounds like you’re asking for a carve-out to me.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

It's not a rule, it is generic and vague description of what roleplaying roughly is. And we know for absolutely certain that it doesn't literally apply all the time anyway, as there clearly are instances that override it. You just arbitrarily refuse to accept some of them.

Yes, the roleplaying rule/guidance/description doesn’t apply for exceptions like spells and abilities that can impose the Charmed or Frightened conditions which have defined mechanical effects. But it does apply for the rest of the game, including for Charisma ability checks which, we know for absolutely certain have no such defined mechanical effects.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

“Within those parameters”? Sounds like you’re asking for a carve-out to me.

The player's ability to roleplay is not unconstrained. We all agree with this. If they're restrained, their ability to declare how their character acts doesn't let their character to run around, if they're muffled, their ability to declare how their character talks, doesn't let them speak. You just arbitrarily decide that some such limitations are fine and some are unacceptable. You have no rule basis for doing this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, the roleplaying rule/guidance/description doesn’t apply for exceptions like spells and abilities that can impose the Charmed or Frightened conditions which have defined mechanical effects. But it does apply for the rest of the game, including for Charisma ability checks which, we know for absolutely certain have no such defined mechanical effects.

You're making an arbitrary and baseless distinction here. This is fully unsupported position. Spells and ability checks are both rules, which can equally limit how the character can behave.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

You're making an arbitrary and baseless distinction here. This is fully unsupported position. Spells and ability checks are both rules, which can equally limit how the character can behave.

Arbitrary?

Charm person imposes the charmed condition which has specific rules governing it.

Tell me the specific rules governing the mechanical effects of an NPC succeeding on a CHA(Persuasion) ability check against a PC.

You see the difference now, right?

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

It kind of blows my mind that you call it a "subtle distinction" and I find myself wondering if you actually believe that, or if it's simply a necessary claim in light of your larger position.

Yes, it is about volition. That's what we've been talking about for 100+ pages.

But here's a not-subtle distinction for you: it's the difference between a player describing an action, and the DM describing their action for them. When the monster shoves a PC underwater, the DM narrates the result and says, "...and shoves you underwater." The player isn't expected/required to narrate being pushed.

But according to your interpretation, after the DM has an NPC do something for which there isn't a specific rule...such as trying to convince the PC to drown themselves...and then the DM decides that the NPC should make an attribute roll to see how persuasive they are, with a DC the DM determines, if the die roll "succeeds" the player should then be required to narrate the result chosen by the DM: "I guess I'll swim deeper..."

I actually think I'd object less to your hijacking of player authority if you just narrated that for them. "The mermaid rolls 23 on her Charisma check, and as a result you use all your movement to swim deeper into the water." I mean, I'd hate playing that way, but at least it would be honest about what's going on.

 

[Maxperson]

1) The cases are of where an outcome is normally certain. As is shown by reading it together with text in the DMG that - a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room. What is laid out is that a DM can decide a case that is normally certain, may be uncertain.

Sure. If the floor is say covered with a layer of ice, a dex check might be called for. What that section is not talking about is the DM just deciding to call for a check to cross a normal floor.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You're making an arbitrary and baseless distinction here. This is fully unsupported position. Spells and ability checks are both rules, which can equally limit how the character can behave.

I truly don't see how you get there. Spells have defined mechanical impacts. "Ability checks" do not.

Now, I think it's a valid debate to discuss how the mechanical impact of ability checks should be determined, and whether it's within DM authority to use them to override player autonomy, or which guidance supersedes which other guidance, etc.

But to argue that it's "arbitrary and baseless" to distinguish between them? That leaves me scratching my head.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Arbitrary?

Charm person imposes the charmed condition which has specific rules governing it.

Tell me the specific rules governing the mechanical effects of an NPC succeeding on a CHA(Persuasion) ability check against a PC.

You see the difference now, right?

The scope of skill is more open, yes. This doesn't somehow make it to not work at all. The game is full of stuff that requires the GM to decide what the exact outcome is. Ability checks are just one of these. Do you also think an NPC couldn't use sleight of hand to pick-pocket a PC because it is an ability check and not a spell?