D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.

They do that by, inter alia, deciding how to resolve their actions. Your view seems to envision that game mechanics don't inform the emergent narrative.

Not at all. My view simply does not envision ability checks being called for to inform the DM’s description. Ability checks are specifically used to determine if an action succeeds (or the character makes progress towards their goal) or if it fails (or the character either makes no progress towards their goal or makes progress towards their goal combined with a setback).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That in no way constrains the player’s ability to decide how their character thinks, speaks, or acts;

Yes it does! It literally does!

it only introduces a challenge which might make the outcome of the action they decide to take uncertain or even impossible.

Right. Just like facing an intimidating person might pose a challenge for the PC to be able to ignore their intimidation. Thus the roll!

I absolutely do. The player decides how their character thinks, speaks, and acts. Some specific rules, such as racial traits, class features, spells, and monster abilities can create specific exceptions to this, where they contradict it. And, of course, the DM determines the outcomes of the actions that the players decide their characters take, sometimes using the roll of the die to help make that determination.

Yet you somehow think that ability checks do not impose such exception. That is arbitrary.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not at all. My view simply does not envision ability checks being called for to inform the DM’s description. Ability checks are specifically used to determine if an action succeeds (or the character makes progress towards their goal) or if it fails (or the character either makes no progress towards their goal or makes progress towards their goal combined with a setback).

But the goal can be anything. The goal can be 'sing well.' And just that, nothing beyond that. You may think it would be a pointless check, and I might even agree with you, but it is still a perfectly valid approach.

 

[Charlaquin]

The PC cannot narrate paying their own drink as they have no money. The NPC took their money!

They can narrate their character attempting to pay, which they would fail because they don’t have money.

Yes, it is perfect example of a thing the NPC can according to the rules do. They can also use their athletics to grapple the PC, which again limits how the PC can act.

But it does not limit the player’s ability to decide how their character thinks, speaks, or acts, it only places an obstacle that might prevent the action they decide on from being successful.

Yes, spells tend to have more defined scope. It really doesn't matter though. That skills require more GM judgement doesn't mean that they do nothing.

Of course they don’t do nothing. What they do is allow the player to add their character’s proficiency bonus to a subset of ability checks. Ability checks are part of the general action resolution process, made to settle uncertainty in whether an action succeeds or fails.

Again, I don't see why this distinction would matter for the topic. The game relies GM to constantly make such stuff up. That a failed athletics check might require GM to improvise some rules effect for a shelf full of random potions collapsing on the PC doesn't mean that this effect somehow cannot affect the PC.

The results of ability checks can absolutely affect PCs. But an action which would cause a character to think, say, or do something contrary to what the player decides cannot succeed, and therefore an ability check is not needed to settle whether or succeeds or fails.

 

[clearstream]

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, subtle, because we are discussing a difference that in many cases makes no difference. The distinction between acting in the way that you desire (jump a certain distance), and choosing to act the way that you desire (jump a certain distance) is more subtle than we have as yet dug into.

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.

So is it right that you feel that a crucial distinction is that the player is expected 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..."

Due to 185, that's up to the player. They can decide they are persuaded and swim deeper, or they can decide that the mermaid's siren words weren't enough to influence them into doing that. What's not up to the player is how actions are resolved. That is up to DM in their capacity as master of rules.

Essentially, some folk are mixing up control of how it is resolved, with control of how your character chooses to act in response to it. These are not at odds (except that some assume they are or force them to be, and go off from there.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Right. Just like facing an intimidating person might pose a challenge for the PC to be able to ignore their intimidation. Thus the roll!

And somehow I’m the one being accused of making circular arguments.

Yet you somehow think that ability checks do not impose such exception. That is arbitrary.

Ability checks settle uncertainty in whether an action is successful or not. An action that cannot succeed (such as jumping to the moon or making a player’s character do something not of that player’s decision) cannot succeed and therefore do not require an ability check. The results of a successful ability check cannot be used as justification for itself to be called for. That’s the definition of circular.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

BTW, I think the argument that traits* and spells could override roleplaying 'rule' but ability checks can not, is pretty damn pointless, considering that the GM can give the NPCs any spells or traits they want, or just whole cloth make up ones. So basically all the GM would need to do under such interpretation to declare that the NPC has a trait that allows them to affect the PC and the argument would be moot.

(*Such as Swasbuckler's Panacahe.)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ability checks settle uncertainty in whether an action is successful or not.

And whether that uncertainty exists is for the GM to decide.

 

[Charlaquin]

Due to 185, that's up to the player. They can decide they are persuaded and swim deeper, or they can decide that the mermaid's siren words weren't enough to influence them into doing that. What's not up to the player is how actions are resolved. That is up to DM in their capacity as master of rules.

Essentially, some folk are mixing up control of how it is resolved, with control of how your character chooses to act in response to it. These are not at odds (except that some assume they are or force them to be, and go off from there.)

If you choose how to act in response to an action whose only function is to make you act a certain way, there is no uncertainty to be settled in whether it succeeds or fails. If the DM wants to use a dice roll (perhaps weighted by a character’s ability modifiers and/or proficiency bonus) to inform how they want to describe the action in question, they are free to do so, just as they are free to flip a coin, or pull a random description out of a hat, but that’s not how the text defines an ability check and it isn’t supported by any text that I’m aware of.

 

[clearstream]

Not at all. My view simply does not envision ability checks being called for to inform the DM’s description. Ability checks are specifically used to determine if an action succeeds (or the character makes progress towards their goal) or if it fails (or the character either makes no progress towards their goal or makes progress towards their goal combined with a setback).

The ability check is called for due to the circumstances the DM describes. Your view then produces the remarkable conclusion that the DM ought to ignore those circumstances and any outcomes in forming their narration.