D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Based on this, it doesn't seem like you understand my argument. I am not resting calling for a check on what would happen if it succeeds. I am resting it on there existing preconditions - such as challenges and consequences - that a DM decides justifies a check. Which - given they must ask themselves - is in their sole discretion.

But you’re ignoring the requirement of a possibility of success for a check to be called for. If the goal of an action is to make a PC do something not of the player’s volition, it is not, per PHB 185, possible for it to succeed, and therefore not all of the necessary conditions are met for a check to be called for.

That's PHB 6.

Oops! Sorry. This is why I keep requesting either quotes or section headers because I don’t have a resource with page numbers accessible to me right now.

PHB 7 is specific beats general. The possibility of something specific that is within the scope of an ability check, or the defined part of that scope that falls within a skill, that beats the general of PHB 185.

Again, the possibility or something specific that falls within the scope of an ability check (to which proficiency bonus may be added if the character performing the action is proficient in a skill under whose scope that specific thing falls) is contingent on an ability check being called for in the first place, which requires a possibility of success, a possibility of failure, and meaningful stakes. These things are determined based on the circumstances, as established by the DM’s description of the environment (which might include an obstacle that would make an otherwise unchallenging action challenging) and either the player’s description of their character’s action or the DM’s description of the NPC’s action. If that description involves a goal which removes the player’s volition, the possibility of success does not exist, per PHB 185, so a check is not necessary to resolve the action, therefore the possibility of something happening as a result of the check is null and does not form a specific exception to any general rule.

 

[clearstream]

Indeed! But if you say a highwayman threatens to stab me if I don’t give him all my money, and decide to call for him to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check to determine if he succeeds, and then he does succeed, you have taken away my volition to not give the highwayman all my money.

That's not what I say happens. Are you sure you understand my stance on this? My reading is very simple:

1. DM decides circumstances, how an action is resolved, and whether to call for a roll
2. Players determine how their characters act (within set limits and s>g exceptions)
3. DM deciding that the outcome of a social interaction is uncertain can do no harm to 2.

In my view, DM will ordinarily not call for a roll for say persuading a player-character. The rules must handle a literally infinite range of situations, so I concede the possibility of there being circumstances that justify calling for a roll. In the same vein, I concede the possibility of something that falls within the scope of ability checks forming an s>g exception. Panache might be such a case.

 

[Lanefan]

The text does not suggest that ability checks should be used to inform narration, only to resolve uncertainty of outcomes.

The text might not suggest narration-informing but as it seems such an obvious secondary use for the roll, why not do it anyway?

 

[Maxperson]

I just saw this meme and it's both seasonally a topically on point!

 

[Lanefan]

I mean personally I don’t care what edition you’re running, telling me a natural 1 represents my best attempt is not what I would call a rule “working well.”

Sure it does. Some days you just ain't got it, and this rule reflects that.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't agree with that. I think that while that method may increase the number of times failure is meaningful, it still doesn't make all failure meaningful. Let's say that the party is in the middle of a plain at a big rock and they try to jump over the rock. If there is no danger or other time pressure, even if they can only try once each, where is the meaning in failure?

If they're in the middle of a plain at a big rock and decide to jump over it instead of simply go around then so be it, though I might raise an eyebrow at the choice. Depending on the size of the rock I might get them to roll just in case one of 'em trips; if it's a small rock there's no roll, and if it's a huge rock we're into climbing rather than jumping.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Eh, I don’t expect everyone is reading every post at this point, so when two or more people ask me what amounts to the same question, I assume they haven’t (yet) read the other person asking it and/or me answering them.

Fair. But this question of trying vs succeeding, and internal mental state vs external physical constraints, has been re-hashed soooooo many times.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The text might not suggest narration-informing but as it seems such an obvious secondary use for the roll, why not do it anyway?

Totally logical, and common. But since about page 0.4 this thread has been a debate about what the text says.

 

[Charlaquin]

That's not what I say happens. Are you sure you understand my stance on this? My reading is very simple:

1. DM decides circumstances, how an action is resolved, and whether to call for a roll
2. Players determine how their characters act (within set limits and s>g exceptions)
3. DM deciding that the outcome of a social interaction is uncertain can do no harm to 2.

Right, so my problem is that this is not, as I understand it, the correct order of operations in 5e. As per PHB 6, it ought to be:

1. The DM describes the environment
2. The players describe how their characters act
3a. DM determines, based on the above, whether the action(s) described can succeed or fail and have stakes.
3b. If all three are true, the DM calls for an ability check to determine whether the action succeeds fails.
3c. The DM describes the results of the action, as determined in 3a and possibly 3b.
4. The processes repeats from 1.

If an action would remove a player’s volition to decide how their character thinks, speaks, or acts, the DM would determine in step 3a that it does not have a possibility of success, and so should proceed directly to 3c without calling for an ability check.

Some racial traits, class features, spells, monster abilities, and other game elements might describe specific exceptions to the above. The Swashbuckler feature Panache is a good example of such a game element. It specifically says that, as an action, the player can can make a Charisma (Persuasion) check contested by a creature's Wisdom (Insight) check, which contradicts the general order of operations, directing the player to make an ability check without having to pass through steps 3a and 3b.

 

[clearstream]

The text might not suggest narration-informing but as it seems such an obvious secondary use for the roll, why not do it anyway?

It literally segues deciding the resolution into forming the narrative. Here is the whole text (PHB 6).

How to Play​

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment.​

The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

2. The players describe what they want to do.​

Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

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

Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.
Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM’s verbal descriptions to set the scene. Some DMs like to use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involved in a scene to help the players keep track of where everyone is.