yeah, this is why my group has fallen to it as an RP aid. It always ends in yes but not no, and it has a variable degree of how well you did (I mean we do that with alot of rolls) I don't like the idea that anyone (PC Monster or NPC) can say "I initiate them into talking" and just 100% can control how the intimidate plays out as if they took control of a character they do not normally have control of..
D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game
- Thread starter Hriston
- Start date
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
I note that the OP was made on a Sunday, and on a Tuesday they have not posted again to clarify their position.
Your hypothesis seems supported by the evidence...
clearstream
(He, Him)
One of the players in my campaign, who usually chooses to play bards, finds the idea of asymmetry between PCs and NPCs unreasonable. He argues that if he can do it to NPCs, they should be able to do it to him.
I agree with him/her/them.
Nefermandias
Hero
I disagree.
We don't have to protect "NPC agency" because that's not real a thing to begin with. Players and DM are not playing on equal footing and the rules should not be the same for both.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
I think what's being seen here, as with the other recent thread, is that if a poster thinks about an action as an ability check or an ability check as an action (not true in either case) then they may think the check is actually doing something in the context of the game world (it isn't). This is often why we see certain groups with players who push or ask to make ability checks. That's their "action" and the result does a thing in the world. Push button, get result.
In truth, an ability check is just a mechanic that the DM uses to resolve an action's outcome, when the DM determines the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. You don't "use skills" or "make a skill check" to do a thing. There are no buttons to push as such. You just attempt to do a thing and the ability check resolves the outcome, when the DM decides an ability check is appropriate.
When this is understood to be the case by the group, then what is outlined by the OP in my experience actually starts happening at the table and questions as to whether a PC can be influenced by a "skill check" the "NPC" makes are easily answered (hint: no).
In truth, an ability check is just a mechanic that the DM uses to resolve an action's outcome, when the DM determines the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. You don't "use skills" or "make a skill check" to do a thing. There are no buttons to push as such. You just attempt to do a thing and the ability check resolves the outcome, when the DM decides an ability check is appropriate.
When this is understood to be the case by the group, then what is outlined by the OP in my experience actually starts happening at the table and questions as to whether a PC can be influenced by a "skill check" the "NPC" makes are easily answered (hint: no).
Last edited:
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Do what? It's already symmetrical. The DM can decide auto success, fail or uncertainty with NPCs, just like the players can with the PCs. No asymmetry exists.
Nefermandias
Hero
You are absolutely right and it took quite some time for my group to adapt to that mindset when 5e came out.
You see, back in 4e skills were indeed "buttons" you could push thanks to the nature of Skill Challenges and Skill Powers. Even during combat encounters you could chose to "Use Arcana" to disable magical effects or detect magic auras, both things that are covered by spells now.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
4e may have been that way(I don't know as I didn't play it), but what you describe there isn't pushing a skill button. The action is, "I try to disable the magical effect." and then the DM calls for a skill check. The action is, " I try to detect any nearby magical auras." and the DM calls for a skill check.
Nefermandias
Hero
Nope. 4e had very specific actions called "skill Powers". Some even had limited uses by short rest.
Similar Threads
