D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

You’re conflating the results of an action with the DM’s description of the action.

I don't think it's a conflation. You usually have to know the result to narrate the description of the action properly. Often one will be a description of an action that is leading to failure, and the other will be a description of an action leading to success. Sometimes the action will be the same and only the end result will change.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Lots of conflation throughout this whole thread of a) the player determining the intended behavior of their PC with b) the DM determining the actual results of said behavior. Like, can we not all see how, in the game of D&D 5e, these are two separate things occurring in two different parts of the play loop?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Lots of conflation throughout this whole thread of a) the player determining the intended behavior of their PC with b) the DM determining the actual results of said behavior. Like, can we not all see how, in the game of D&D 5e, these are two separate things occurring in two different parts of the play loop?

Yes. But page 185 doesn't actually say "the player determines how their character tries to act, talk and think," it says the player determines how their character acts, talks and thinks. The whole argument is based on reading this section as literal rules, instead of just vague and generic description of roleplaying, so let's then be literal about it!

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it's a conflation. You usually have to know the result to narrate the description of the action properly. Often one will be a description of an action that is leading to failure, and the other will be a description of an action leading to success. Sometimes the action will be the same and only the end result will change.

The description of an action should precede the determination of its success or failure, and an ability check should be called for if both are possible, to determine which occurs.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Sure, that’s a reasonable and rules-supported adjudication.

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

If you think my position is that NPCs can’t participate in ability contests as part of the resolution of a PC’s action, you don’t understand my position.

That literally is limiting how they act!

It isn’t, it only affects their chances of success in the action they decide to take.

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...

N… no? I have no idea how you’re reaching this conclusion.

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.

If it helps, you could frame my argument as concerning what’s “generally advisable based on the text,” sure.

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

I mean, it’s straight from PHB 7, but ok.

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.

Again again, if it helps you could frame my argument as being about good practice, as recommended by the text.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes. But page 185 doesn't actually say "the player determines how their character tries to act, talk and think," it says the player determines how their character acts, talks and thinks. The whole argument is based on reading this section as literal rules, instead of just vague and generic description of roleplaying, so let's then be literal about it!

If you take issue with calling the text in question “rules,” it doesn’t meaningfully change the argument to consider them “guidance” or whatever you like. The point is that it’s text in the rulebook, which support the DM in making rulings.

 

[Maxperson]

The description of an action should precede the determination of its success or failure, and an ability check should be called for if both are possible, to determine which occurs.

I disagree. The declaration of the action should precede it. However, sometimes the action in question should and will be narrated differently depending on the outcome.

An example would be a PC declaring a swim across a strong river to the other side. In order to narrate the full action before the roll, the description will have to be of swimming the entire way across, which will become nonsensical on a failure. The reason for this is that if I narrate only the beginning of the swim or a swim halfway before rolling, I have failed to narrate the full action before the roll. Instead a narration of the beginning of the swim or a swim halfway becomes a situation where the full narration is contingent on the outcome as I have said.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Nevermind

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Nevermind

Yeah, better choice there, self.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree.

Finally, all is right with the world again

The declaration of the action should precede it. However, sometimes the action in question should and will be narrated differently depending on the outcome.

An example would be a PC declaring a swim across a strong river to the other side. In order to narrate the full action before the roll, the description will have to be of swimming the entire way across, which will become nonsensical on a failure. The reason for this is that if I narrate only the beginning of the swim or a swim halfway before rolling, I have failed to narrate the full action before the roll. Instead a narration of the beginning of the swim or a swim halfway becomes a situation where the full narration is contingent on the outcome as I have said.

Ok, I see what you’re saying. Yes, a successful outcome would of course be narrated differently than a failed one, so in that sense the result of the roll does inform the DM’s narration. I meant more that I don’t see support for the DM calling for a roll solely to inform their description. For example, saying that an NPC tries to intimidate a PC, making an ability check for the NPC, and using the result of the check to inform how they describe the NPC’s attempt at intimidating the character, while leaving the player to decide how their character reacts to that description (as many folks have suggested they do, most notably Hammer Man). In my view, the description of the attempt at intimidating the character should come first, and the ability check should be made after, if the DM determines (based on the circumstances as established in the description of the environment and the description of the action) that it’s uncertain whether that attempt will succeed in the goal or not. But, even if the DM were to find uncertainty in the outcome, narrating either success or failure according to the result of the roll would require the DM to decide and then narrate how the character reacts to the intimidation attempt, instead of the player doing so as PHB 185 suggests.