D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

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”?

By "binding" I mean that once the dice are invoked the roll determines the result and that result is binding on all involved, meaning neither player nor DM can in good faith ignore it; in other words the generally accepted way of doing things since about forever.

If this isn't mentioned in the rulebooks (and TBH I'm not about to spend an evening poring over rulebooks I don't otherwise use, looking for it) it seems a rather glaring omission; and come to think of it I'm not sure it's been spelled out in any edition's rulebooks that I can remember seeing. Oops.

[ETA - note I'm talking about actual game-mechanic-forced rolls here e.g. to-hit rolls in combat or DM-called ability checks. Self-informative or other informal rolls are never binding unless the roller wants them to be.]

And why is this relevant here? Because if your interpretation of (was it page 7?) is correct, a DM can in any situation allow an NPC a roll to succeed and if a) that situation is a social situation and b) the general rule is that die rolls are binding, then the player is bound to roleplay according to the roll's result.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, or tht it's something I'd support; I'm just putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4 even though my preferred answer is probably about 37.6.

 

[Maxperson]

Finally, all is right with the world again

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.

And now you've gone and blown it by agreeing with me!!!

Thinking further, maybe what I am saying what Crawford meant by,

"NPC ability checks can't force a PC to think/feel something, but they can affect how the DM describes the NPC. #DnD"

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).

Yes. RAW does not support that. Not that I have an issue with a DM who wants to do that. If the DM wants to roll behind the screen to see how well his NPC does something, that's fine by me.

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.

I agree.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

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.

Only other way around it is somehow a problem? So if we word the thing as a PC taking an action to resist intimidation they can be affected, but if we word it as the NPC taking an action to intimidate the PC they cannot? Even if the mechanics involved would literally be the exact same?

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

Explain to me what you understand 'limiting how the PC acts' ro me? To me it is pretty damn clear that being physically prevented from speaking limits how the PC can talk!

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

Because you said:

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.

And then 'see above' regarding intimidation. So you seem to think intimidation (and presumably other social ability checks) can do that.

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

It's not. It simply says which parts of the book contain most rules and it says some game elements may break general rules. Exact division of general and specific isn't made.

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

Then perhaps you should have led with that instead of trying to rules lawyer the thing?

 

[Charlaquin]

And now you've gone and blown it by agreeing with me!!!

Yes. RAW does not support that. Not that I have an issue with a DM who wants to do that. If the DM wants to roll behind the screen to see how well his NPC does something, that's fine by me.

I agree.

Yep, we are somehow on the same page. Must have been a cold week in hell

 

[Charlaquin]

By "binding" I mean that once the dice are invoked the roll determines the result and that result is binding on all involved, meaning neither player nor DM can in good faith ignore it; in other words the generally accepted way of doing things since about forever.

If this isn't mentioned in the rulebooks (and TBH I'm not about to spend an evening poring over rulebooks I don't otherwise use, looking for it) it seems a rather glaring omission; and come to think of it I'm not sure it's been spelled out in any edition's rulebooks that I can remember seeing. Oops.

[ETA - note I'm talking about actual game-mechanic-forced rolls here e.g. to-hit rolls in combat or DM-called ability checks. Self-informative or other informal rolls are never binding unless the roller wants them to be.]

And why is this relevant here? Because if your interpretation of (was it page 7?) is correct, a DM can in any situation allow an NPC a roll to succeed and if a) that situation is a social situation and b) the general rule is that die rolls are binding, then the player is bound to roleplay according to the roll's result.

I'm not saying this is a good thing, or tht it's something I'd support; I'm just putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 4 even though my preferred answer is probably about 37.6.

I guess I just don’t see any point in specifying that the result of a roll is “binding.” If it wasn’t, why would the rules say to make it in the first place?

 

[Bill Zebub]

. 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?

Apparently not.

I can understand the disagreements about rule vs guideline, general vs specific, the intended meaning/use of monster skills, etc.

But this ongoing blindness, whether it is willful or genuine, to the difference between apples and oranges (“but they are both fruits, so there’s no meaningful distinction!”) is facepalm-inducing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Apparently not.

I can understand the disagreements about rule vs guideline, general vs specific, the intended meaning/use of monster skills, etc.

But this ongoing blindness, whether it is willful or genuine, to the difference between apples and oranges (“but they are both fruits, so there’s no meaningful distinction!”) is facepalm-inducing.

So player determines how their character acts, talks and thinks? And unlike what it says, this actually means they determine how their character tries to do these things? Yet some things can mean that the PC actually doesn't manage to do those things like the player desired. Like for example if they're physically restrained and muffled they could not speak. But the player could still determine how their character tries to talk! But if physical skills can restrain the outcome player's thinking acting and talking determination capabilities, why social skills cannot do that as well?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Here's an attempt to clarify things for those with fruit blindness:

When a character declares an action, a.k.a. "tries something", and the DM rules that the attempt fails (or possibly calls for a roll), what is the reason given for why they will (or might) fail? What thing is preventing the character from achieving their goal?

Note that this isn't "what chain of events got us here", which might include, "Somebody cast a spell on you" or "Somebody hit you with a truck" or "Somebody tried to persuade you").

It's "What is actually preventing me from doing X?"

How the DM explains it says a lot about what's going on.

Apples:
1. A specific rule that imposes a defined mechanical condition: Restrained, 0 HP, Charmed, Grappled, etc.
2. A physical reality so obvious it doesn't need rules: there is a wall in the way, you're in free fall, there is no oxygen, etc.
3. No specific mechanic allowing physical reality to be ignored: hobbits don't breathe fire, you don't know that spell, etc.

Oranges:
"You just can't"
"Your character wouldn't do that"
"You are trying to get an in-game advantage instead of playing your character"

The thing about Oranges is that if you keep pushing and digging and seeking clarity, eventually you are going to arrive at those pesky "thoughts and feelings" of the character, but without a named mechanic (Charmed, Restrained, Frightened, Zero HP) to back them up.

With the Apples, that's not necessary. It doesn't matter what the character is thinking or feeling, halflings can't breathe fire. It doesn't matter what they are thinking or feeling, when you are Restrained you can't move.

I'm not sure I can explain the difference any better than that. If anybody still wants to insist there is no distinction, well I guess we're at an impasse.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Here's an attempt to clarify things for those with fruit blindness:

When a character declares an action, a.k.a. "tries something", and the DM rules that the attempt fails (or possibly calls for a roll), what is the reason given for why they will (or might) fail? What thing is preventing the character from achieving their goal?

Note that this isn't "what chain of events got us here", which might include, "Somebody cast a spell on you" or "Somebody hit you with a truck" or "Somebody tried to persuade you").

It's "What is actually preventing me from doing X?"

How the DM explains it says a lot about what's going on.

Apples:
1. A specific rule that imposes a defined mechanical condition: Restrained, 0 HP, Charmed, Grappled, etc.
2. A physical reality so obvious it doesn't need rules: there is a wall in the way, you're in free fall, there is no oxygen, etc.
3. No specific mechanic allowing physical reality to be ignored: hobbits don't breathe fire, you don't know that spell, etc.

Oranges:
"You just can't"
"Your character wouldn't do that"
"You are trying to get an in-game advantage instead of playing your character"

The thing about Oranges is that if you keep pushing and digging and seeking clarity, eventually you are going to arrive at those pesky "thoughts and feelings" of the character, but without a named mechanic (Charmed, Restrained, Frightened, Zero HP) to back them up.

With the Apples, that's not necessary. It doesn't matter what the character is thinking or feeling, halflings can't breathe fire. It doesn't matter what they are thinking or feeling, when you are Restrained you can't move.

I'm not sure I can explain the difference any better than that. If anybody still wants to insist there is no distinction, well I guess we're at an impasse.

I understand the difference, it just isn't one that the page 185 makes. It says "determine how character acts, talks or feels." It doesn't talk about trying, and even if we assumed that it is implied, then 'trying' applies to thinking just as much as acting. Also note that feelings are not mentioned at all. So nothing in this text really distinguishes between character being unable to fully act how they want due being hindered by NPC athletics, or thinking what they want due NPC deception or indeed not being able to fully act as they want due being intimidated by the NPC.

I get the place you want to get to, and it's IMHO a good goal. It's just that I don't think this rules argument will get you there.

 

[Maxperson]

So player determines how their character acts, talks and thinks? And unlike what it says, this actually means they determine how their character tries to do these things? Yet some things can mean that the PC actually doesn't manage to do those things like the player desired. Like for example if they're physically restrained and muffled they could not speak. But the player could still determine how their character tries to talk! But if physical skills can restrain the outcome player's thinking acting and talking determination capabilities, why social skills cannot do that as well?

Because physical(apples) is not social(oranges).