D&D 5E Tabletop Rules and Guidelines

[Sunseeker]

If there is no obligation on the part of the player to have his or her character act a particular way, I wonder then what the purpose of the check is. To give an indication of how persuasive Player A's character sounds even if Player B ultimately decides to have his or her character slay the bandit?

Yes. That was exactly what I explained it to be.

All people, NPCs and PCs alike are free-willed, making a good argument upon them is no guarantee that they will like it, agree with it, or do what you want them to do because of it. Sure, you're more likely to get better results via a better check, but they'll consider your argument, compare it to their own wants and needs and then determine if they want to listen to you.

Social checks against PCs are identical to social checks against NPCs. They are not attempts to mind control your opponent. There's a spell for that. Sometimes people are easy to persuade. Sometimes people are not going to listen to you even with a confirmed crit and double proficiency bonuses.

 

[seebs]

I don't care about the exact wording of the rules. I'm not running Jeremy Crawford's game; I'm running my game. The rules belong to the DM, and are just a small part of his toolbox. Whether we play "correctly" by the book is not important to me. The important thing is that there's a type V demon trying to mince you, and if you hesitate, you die.

Okay, that sounds like a really interesting game, but it doesn't sound like D&D. It mostly sounds like you're trying for excuses to be smug and say things like "if you can't handle this", when all you're really doing is disregarding any rules you don't happen to remember off the top of your head.

You might be happier with a rules-light system instead of D&D.

 

[seebs]

It doesn't mean that your paladin and thief will do the same thing. It just means that whatever it is you have them do should be fun for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable story.

Then that isn't "the" answer to "what would my character do".

I think you're reading too much into it. Do your best to be mindful of the goals of play when deciding what your character does - that's all.

But that's not what you said. What you said was, if your answer to "will this serve these two goals" is "no" or "I'm not sure", pick something else.

I'm not reading into. I'm taking it flatly literally and at face value. You said "don't do anything unless you are sure it serves these goals". Now you're saying "keep these goals in mind", which is radically different, and allows for "I'm not sure".

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[iserith]

Then that isn't "the" answer to "what would my character do".

But that's not what you said. What you said was, if your answer to "will this serve these two goals" is "no" or "I'm not sure", pick something else.

I'm not reading into. I'm taking it flatly literally and at face value. You said "don't do anything unless you are sure it serves these goals". Now you're saying "keep these goals in mind", which is radically different, and allows for "I'm not sure".

I'm telling you what I mean by what I said. If your argument is I need to say it a different way, then that's a pretty pedantic position but... okay?

 

[iserith]

As long as the player being acted upon is asking for the die roll I don't see any problem.

The DM could determine that there is a chance that Player A could convince an NPC not to slay the prisoner and that a persuasion check could resolve that uncertainty.
Likewise, Player B could believe that PC A could convince PC B not to slay the prisoner and ask for a persuasion check to resolve that uncertainty. There is nothing in the rules preventing a player from using the dice to resolve uncertainty in their character's response in the exact same way that a DM does for all NPCs.

As an example from one of my recent games, my character had asked another character to compile some information into a condensed and organized format. If he did well enough, my character was going to grant him access to a book he was looking for. I asked for an Intelligence check from him to determine the quality of his work and how impressed my character would be. He rolled well enough and got the book. Had he rolled worse I would have asked him to complete some other task for me before getting the book. No one saw any problem with it and the game continued.

I agree that a player trying to force their die result onto another player would be a problem.

If you read my sixth rule, you'll find we are in agreement as I don't particularly care how players resolve things between them provided the target that is being acted upon decides the result (or how the result will be determined). This is different than what [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION] is proposing, apparently, because the way shidaku seems to do things (if I understand him or her correctly), there are no real stakes for the roll (what you win or lose). It just determines how it's described. Nobody's obligated to act in a particular way due to the result of the check.

Yes. That was exactly what I explained it to be.

All people, NPCs and PCs alike are free-willed, making a good argument upon them is no guarantee that they will like it, agree with it, or do what you want them to do because of it. Sure, you're more likely to get better results via a better check, but they'll consider your argument, compare it to their own wants and needs and then determine if they want to listen to you.

Social checks against PCs are identical to social checks against NPCs. They are not attempts to mind control your opponent. There's a spell for that. Sometimes people are easy to persuade. Sometimes people are not going to listen to you even with a confirmed crit and double proficiency bonuses.

If there are no stakes, then I don't see the point of the ability check personally. When I call for a check (players don't do this in my game), it's because X happens if you succeed and Y happens if you don't (though sometimes Y is X plus a setback).

 

[Corpsetaker]

I look at it this way.

If you don't like the rules at my table then find someone else to DM.

 

[robus]

Huh. Well, I trust you understand that while I respect your desire to run your table that way, you should respect my desire to never, ever, ever want to play at that table. Different playstyles and all that.

If interaction between players consisted of, "I attempt to persuade Rolf the Half-Wit Barbarian to attack the dragon. (Roll skill check to determine how awesome my persuasion is.)," then that would be a bridge too far in roleplaying v. rollplaying. YMMV.

Just because people have different strengths and desires in roleplaying, doesn't mean that I want to be at a table where my social interactions with other party members involves dice.

So, yeah, I view PCs and NPCs differently. Both are nominally free-willed, but PCs are, in fact, controlled by players. In a game. NPCs are "free-willed," but to the extent that they are controlled by the DM, the DM must, to a certain extent, allow the dice to inform and constrain his decision.

Agreed. There is no uncertainty about what a fellow PC thinks about your proposal. They either agree or they don't. There's no dice roll needed to resolve uncertainty.

The one case I could see would be in opposed checks. Say the PCs want to arm wrestle over who gets the +1 sword then that might be a fun case for the dice. But never when you're talking to other PCs as characters.

 

[Satyrn]

I don't think there are any rules of this sort at my table.

The group seems to run well for everyone with just the natural interaction of friends hanging out together.

 

[Sunseeker]

If there are no stakes, then I don't see the point of the ability check personally. When I call for a check (players don't do this in my game), it's because X happens if you succeed and Y happens if you don't (though sometimes Y is X plus a setback).

I'm not sure repetition will increase clarity then.