D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Their ability to act is constrained if they're bound. Their ability to talk is constrained if they're muffled. Their ability to think might be constrained if they were scared. The first two are actually far harder constraints and if we are truly going to treat p. 185 as inviolable rule, then that could not happen.

Their ability to decide to do those things is not.

And if deciding but not being able to do it is enough to satisfy the 'rule' then we can just say that the player ca decide that their character tries to act brave in face of intimidation, but can't actually do it.

Right, so if a player decides their character does something, and that thing can’t succeed, the DM can narrate the results without needing to ask the player to make a check to determine if they succeed or not. Sure enough, if the player declares an action like “I try to get the tea lady to back off” (<-goal) “by telling her I’m not scared of her” (<-approach), the DM can absolutely determine that action fails without needing to call for a roll. But this is really a separate question from whether or not it’s appropriate to call for a check to resolve the NPC’s action.

 

[clearstream]

They also endorse the DM to decide that it’s possible for a character to jump to the moon. I don’t think such a decision would be supported by the rest of the text though.

...deciding that something is uncertain when it would remove the player’s volition to decide what their character thinks, says, or does is not something they provide support for.

The two retained sentences are probably those that we must just agree to disagree on. We each make readings that colour what we say the text supports. It's hard to see how to make arguments in either direction that will compel the other. (I cite 128 pages of debate in evidence.)

 

[Charlaquin]

Isn't there a general rule in there somewhere that says die rolls are binding? (and if not, why not, as it would seem to be a major omission in a game that uses dice as determinants)

What is meant by “binding” here? My understanding is that die rolls are used to determine if an action succeeds or fails. What would it even look like for an action to succeed and that success not be “binding”?

 

[Charlaquin]

Striking through what feels to me like a distraction from our essential agreement, would you say we have reached consensus?

It’s meant to be an analogous example of the DM deciding something is possible without support from the text. But, yes, I think we’ve arrived at as much of a consensus as we’re ever going to be able to reach.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Their ability to decide to do those things is not.

It actually says 'determine'. Are you determining how your character acts if the act doesn't occur, are you determining how your character talks if no words are uttered? I'd argue that no, you're not.

Right, so if a player decides their character does something, and that thing can’t succeed, the DM can narrate the results without needing to ask the player to make a check to determine if they succeed or not. Sure enough, if the player declares an action like “I try to get the tea lady to back off” (<-goal) “by telling her I’m not scared of her” (<-approach), the DM can absolutely determine that action fails without needing to call for a roll. But this is really a separate question from whether or not it’s appropriate to call for a check to resolve the NPC’s action.

Is it? Why are you not making an intimidation check for the tea lady?

Also, why can NPC athletics limit how character acts, but NPC intimidation cannot limit how the character thinks?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Thing is, it seems ability checks in 5e flat-out lack the mechanical teeth to impose such limits. A player running a PC is free to use the checks to inform roleplaying but is also free to ignore them completely; hence my questioning the point of those abilities' existence.

Again, the text makes it plain that you can ignore them. They are implicitly there only to aid you in a decision if you don’t want to make it yourself. They are, effectively, entirely optional.

 

[Charlaquin]

It actually says 'determine'. Are you determining how your character acts if the act doesn't occur, are you determining how your character talks if no words are uttered? I'd argue that no, you're not.

In the context of the pattern of play, yes. You have the ability to describe what you want to do, and have the DM narrate the results, possibly relying on the roll of the die to determine the results (or possibly not doing so).

Is it? Why are you not making an intimidation check for the tea lady?

Because it isn’t her action?

Also, why can NPC athletics limit how character acts, but NPC intimidation cannot limit how the character thinks?

A character (PC or NPC) who tries to grapple another creature (character or monster) must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) vs. Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to do so. If they succeed, there will, in the next loop of the pattern of play, be a new circumstance which might make certain things the player might describe wanting to do difficult or impossible to succeed at.

A character (PC or NPC) who tries to force a player character to do think, speak, or act in a certain way, and is not using a racial trait, class feature, spell, monster ability, or other game element which specifically allows them to do so, the DM must fall back on the general rules for resolving actions, which instruct them to ask themselves if the action is uncertain (can it succeed? Can it fail? Are there stakes?). If they are taking all the text of the rulebooks into consideration, they would find that no, it can’t succeed because how the character thinks, speaks, and acts is up to the player, not the dice, to determine. So no ability check is supported in being called for.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In the context of the pattern of play, yes. You have the ability to describe what you want to do, and have the DM describe the results, possibly relying on the roll of the die to determine the results (or possibly not doing so).

Except you don't want there to be a roll. And again, if it is enough to satisfy the 'roleplaying rule' for the player to say that their character tries to act brave, then whether they can actually bring themselves to do it can absolutely be uncertain and subject of a check.

Because it isn’t her action?

That depends on how the GM sets up the situation and how they decide to rule it. Sounds like some sort of contested roll to me.

A character (PC or NPC) who tries to grapple another creature (character or monster) must succeed on a Strength (Athletics) vs. Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to do so. If they succeed, there will, in the next loop of the pattern of play, be a new circumstance which might make certain things the player might describe wanting to do difficult or impossible to succeed at.

You did not answer why grapple can limit how the PC acts.

A character (PC or NPC) who tries to force a player character to do think, speak, or act in a certain way not of their own volition

Like grapple.

runs up against the rule that says it is the player who makes that determination.

Not a rule.

Since the player, not the NPC, determines how their character thinks, speaks, and acts, this action cannot succeed, unless they use a racial trait, class feature, spell, monster ability, or other game element which specifically allows them to do so.

Why can this override this supposed rule? Why ability check cannot? You're literally just making this up!

In the absence of such an exception, the DM must fall back on the general rules for resolving actions, which instruct them to ask themselves if the action is uncertain (can it succeed? Can it fail? Are there stakes?) and finds that no, it can’t succeed because how the character thinks, speaks, and acts is up to the player, not the dice, to determine. So no ability check is supported in being called for.

It's for the GM to determine what can or cannot succeed, call for checks and determine their outcomes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except you don't want there to be a roll. And again, if it is enough to satisfy the 'roleplaying rule' for the player to say that their character tries to act brave, then whether they can actually bring themselves to do it can absolutely be uncertain and subject of a check.

Yes, if the player declares that their character acts brave, the DM might or might not call for them to make an ability check to determine the outcome. I thought we were talking about NPC actions.

That depends on how the GM sets up the situation and how they decide to rule it. Sounds like some sort of contested roll to me.

Yes, in fact in the example from earlier in the thread I was referencing, it was ruled to be resolved by an ability contest, and I agreed that was a rules-supported adjudication.

You did not answer why grapple can limit how the PC acts.

It can’t, it can only introduce a circumstance which might make some actions the PC might take in the next iteration of the play loop challenging or impossible to succeed at.

Like grapple.

See above.

Not a rule.

Call it what you want, it’s part of the text to which we refer to find support in making rulings.

Why can this override this supposed rule?

Because of PHB 7, specific beats general.

Why ability check cannot? You're literally just making this up!

Because an ability check is a part of the general rules for resolving actions, which only occurs after the possibility of success and failure and existence of meaningful stakes is determined (if those things are determined).

It's for the GM to determine what can or cannot succeed, call for checks and determine their outcomes.

Yes, and the text supports some determinations and does not support others.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes, if the player declares that their character acts brave, the DM might or might not call for them to make an ability check to determine the outcome. I thought we were talking about NPC actions.

If the PC is trying to act brave in context of being indimidated, it is a contest.

Yes, in fact in the example from earlier in the thread I was referencing, it was ruled to be resolved by an ability contest, and I agreed that was a rules-supported adjudication.

I see. So the tea lady is making an intimidation roll just I suggested.

It can’t, it can only introduce a circumstance which might make some actions the PC might take in the next iteration of the play loop challenging or impossible to succeed at.

That literally is limiting how they act!

See above.

So you think that the under the rules intimidate can work like grapple? I.e., limit how the PC can act. Except for some reason you think grapple is not doing that...

Call it what you want, it’s part of the text to which we refer to find support in making rulings.

If you argument would be that it is generally advisable for GM to have NPC social skills terribly much affect player agency I'd be fully with you. The bizarre rules-lawyering you employ in attempt to get there is super counter productive though.

Because of PHB 7, specific beats general.

Because an ability check is a part of the general rules for resolving actions, which only occurs after the possibility of success and failure and existence of meaningful stakes is determined (if those things are determined).

I don't agree with your definition of 'general.'

Yes, and the text supports some determinations and does not support others.

Again, if your argument is about good practice, you might have a point. But you're trying to make a RAW argument and it simply is not holding up.