Inspiration is a PC-on-PC Social Skills Question

[jayoungr]

It's just hit me that the discussion about mundane healing and buffing through inspiration touches on essentially the same issue as the question of what happens when one PC attempts to use a social skill like Persuasion or Intimidation on another PC.

Discuss.

This question has been controversial for approximately as long as there have been social skills in D&D, which is probably why there has been so much back-and-forth about it here.

Is there anyone here who's in favor of mundane inspirational healing but against the use of PC-on-PC social skills? If so, what do you see as the difference between the two cases?

 

[FrogReaver]

It's just hit me that the discussion about mundane healing through inspiration touches on essentially the same issue as the question of what happens when one PC attempts to use a social skill like Persuasion or Intimidation on another PC.

Discuss.

This question has been controversial for approximately as long as there have been social skills in D&D, which is probably why there has been so much back-and-forth about it here.

Is there anyone here who's in favor of mundane inspirational healing but against the use of PC-on-PC social skills? If so, what do you see as the difference between the two cases?

I don't see the parallels?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Really?

Jim: "My barbarian thinks rogues are untrustworthy. Including Mike's character."
Mike: "I use my persuasion skill to get Jim's barbarian to trust me." <rolls high>
DM: "Okay, Jim. Your barbarian trusts Mike's rogue now."

vs...

Jim: "My barbarian thinks elves are frail and inept. Including Mike's character."
Mike: "I use my elven warlord ability to inspire Jim's barbarian to fight harder."
DM: "Okay, Jim. Your barbarian is inspired by Mike's elf now."

I can see the parallel.

 

[mellored]

Or

Jim: "My barbarian distrusts any form of magic. Including Mikes character"
Mike: "I cast charm person on Jim." <fails save>
DM: "Okay, Jim. Your barbarian now see's Mike as a friend.".

Or

Jill: "My character is a drow lesbian, and thinks all men are disgusting creatures who should be destroyed".
Incubus: "I charm Jill." <fails save>
DM: "Okay, Jill. Your character is in love with a man.".

 

[jayoungr]

To expand, it's because when no magic is involved, getting your allies to fight longer and harder happens through social skill. Some of the buffing could arguably come from tactical ability, but I don't see how that would translate to healing (restoring HPs or rousing unconscious allies).

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Or

Jim: "My barbarian distrusts any form of magic. Including Mikes character"
Mike: "I cast charm person on Jim." <fails save>
DM: "Okay, Jim. Your barbarian now see's Mike as a friend.".

Or

Jill: "My character is a drow lesbian, and thinks all men are disgusting creatures who should be destroyed".
Incubus: "I charm Jill." <fails save>
DM: "Okay, Jill. Your character is in love with a man.".

Yeah. I get that you continue to miss the difference between external magical compulsion (which, interestingly enough, you show Jim and Jill making a save presumably trying to resist) and mundane efforts to remove a player's agency WRT their PC's own thoughts and feelings.

 

[mellored]

To expand, it's because when no magic is involved, getting your allies to fight longer and harder happens through social skill. Some of the buffing could arguably come from tactical ability, but I don't see how that would translate to healing (restoring HPs or rousing unconscious allies).

From a social perspective, one player dictates how another character feels.

Saying "magically" doesn't change that fact, it just handwaves away any explanation.

 

[FrogReaver]

From a social perspective, one player dictates how another character feels.

Saying "magically" doesn't change that fact, it just handwaves away any explanation.

Some would hold that magic is the explanation and not just a handwaving of the explanation...

 

[jayoungr]

Or

Jim: "My barbarian distrusts any form of magic. Including Mikes character"
Mike: "I cast charm person on Jim." <fails save>
DM: "Okay, Jim. Your barbarian now see's Mike as a friend.".

Or

Jill: "My character is a drow lesbian, and thinks all men are disgusting creatures who should be destroyed".
Incubus: "I charm Jill." <fails save>
DM: "Okay, Jill. Your character is in love with a man.".

Yes. The two situations above are controversial, so it's not surprising that PC-on-PC inspiration should be so as well.

 

[FrogReaver]

Really?

Jim: "My barbarian thinks rogues are untrustworthy. Including Mike's character."
Mike: "I use my persuasion skill to get Jim's barbarian to trust me." <rolls high>
DM: "Okay, Jim. Your barbarian trusts Mike's rogue now."

vs...

Jim: "My barbarian thinks elves are frail and inept. Including Mike's character."
Mike: "I use my elven warlord ability to inspire Jim's barbarian to fight harder."
DM: "Okay, Jim. Your barbarian is inspired by Mike's elf now."

I can see the parallel.

Thanks for the example. I definitely am against this. Mostly because I don't believe the chance of success or failure is uncertain so a roll shouldn't be called for to begin with. The rogue does something to try and persuade the barbarian to trust the rogue. The player of the barbarian decides if that succeeds or fails. No roll required.

From this example I can somewhat see the parallel. The player of the barbarian has a right to decide if the barbarian is inspired by whatever the warlord would do. I tend to agree. However, DND 5e already has specific class mechanics that circumvent this decision process in the combat portion of the game. I'm not sure why a game that already circumvents this decision to be inspired by an ally during combat scenarios should be prohibited from having more of such mechanics. While in skill type interactions there is no circumvention of player agency in these regards.