D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

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.

I’m sorry, I don’t follow. If the circumstances make whether the action succeeds or fails uncertain, an ability check is a supported way to settle that uncertainty. If they don’t, the DM is not supported in calling for an ability check.

 

[Charlaquin]

Unless the DM decides that circumstances dictate otherwise.

What circumstances would dictate that a player can’t decide what their character thinks, says, or does?

 

[clearstream]

I’m sorry, I don’t follow. If the circumstances make whether the action succeeds or fails uncertain, an ability check is a supported way to settle that uncertainty. If they don’t, the DM is not supported in calling for an ability check.

When they are they are, when they're not they're not. Gotcha

 

[Charlaquin]

And that is one of the facts that bears on my proposing a much simpler and more consistent reading. What is the pay off for digging our heels in on some notion of prior-certainty given that if a DM wished to achieve it another way working tightly within the rules, they can!

I don’t agree that the reading you propose is more consistent (obviously, or we wouldn’t be here). I am arguing only for what I understand the rules to say. This can help us form an understanding of how they are intended to be used, which might indicate, for example, that the designers did not intend for NPCs to have traits that allow them to dictate another character’s behavior and be resolved by an ability check. We see a few such abilities in PC-facing elements like classes, but on NPCs, traits which allow them to dictate another character’s behavior are typically resolved by a saving throw.

 

[Charlaquin]

Then the whole argument is utter sophistry as the end result will be the same! So why not just skip the pointless bit where we waste time inventing mechanics to overcome an imagined restriction that doesn't in effect restrict anything anyway?

Maybe don’t invent such mechanics, as they seem to go against the intent of the rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

For the sake of argument, let's suppose that both our readings are equally valid. We are for whatever reason unable to choose between them. And let us surrender for a moment our feelings of the greater perfection of our own readings.

We might then think about how we cash them out. What does your reading gain, that mine does not?

A better clarity of design intent. (Also personally I find the gameplay runs better overall my way, but that’s a matter of personal taste).

 

[Hriston]

slight of hand could be used to fool a PC to think that an object is in another place where it actually is. So that would in effect affect how the PC thinks.

Not in contravention of the player's ability to roleplay their character.

Let me explain. D&D is a game of hidden information. Certain information about the game-world is presented to the players as known/perceived by their PCs. Other information is not. The players are free to roleplay their PCs in response.

So when a PC is successfully pickpocketed, the location of his/her wallet, for example, becomes hidden knowledge. The DM does not tell the player that their PC no longer possesses his/her wallet, and therefore the player no longer knows where the PC's wallet is located. It's likely that the player assumes that the PC's wallet is still on his/her person, but the player is free to decide what the PC's thoughts are about where his/her wallet is, including suspecting others of having taken it.

The DM is not supported, for example, in telling the player that someone approaches their character and successfully pickpockets his/her wallet, expecting the player to then play their character as oblivious to the occurrence, because this would be an abridgement of the player's ability to roleplay their character.

 

[clearstream]

What circumstances would dictate that a player can’t decide what their character thinks, says, or does?

Suppose an NPC securely ties up a PC. That's within the scope of a DEX ability check according to PHB, or INT if following the XGE optional rule. The PC determines they want to wriggle free of those bonds. Their decision-making authority hasn't been impacted by being tied up. What is impacted is the outcome, how their character turns out to be able to act in actuality. According to PHB wriggling free is also a DEX ability check.

The player can't decide that their character does wriggle free. They can decide that their character is going to try and wriggle free. The DM decides how that will be resolved.

 

[clearstream]

A better clarity of design intent. (Also personally I find the gameplay runs better overall my way, but that’s a matter of personal taste).

Clarity? Your reading results in a procedure that - according to you - excludes the possibility of anything defined within the scope of ability checks to ever form an s>g exception to PHB 185. But PHB 7 isn't limited that way. Have you modified that?

 

[Charlaquin]

Suppose an NPC securely ties up a PC. That's within the scope of a DEX ability check according to PHB, or INT if following the XGE optional rule. The PC determines they want to wriggle free of those bonds. Their decision-making authority hasn't been impacted by being tied up. What is impacted is the outcome, how their character turns out to be able to act in actuality. According to PHB wriggling free is also a DEX ability check.

The player can't decide that their character does wriggle free. They can decide that their character is going to try and wriggle free. The DM decides how that will be resolved.

Yes…? The player’s ability to decide what the character thinks, says, and does is not constrained here; only the possibility of succeeding at the action they decide to take is in question (and therefore an ability check is a supported way to resolve this action). As you state in this post.