D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Ovinomancer]

I agree with this. It can be used for other things as well. Maybe the DM has the players run a monster as their character for part of the adventure. Maybe a character is Polymorphed or Shapechanged into a monster. Maybe a monster is Dominated or otherwise controlled by a player. Maybe an item/door/effect requires a Cha(Persuasion/Intimidation) roll to activate. Maybe the designers simply wanted to future proof monster stats for stuff in the future.

For all these reasons, I simply don’t find the fact that monster stat blocks may contain Pers or Int is persuasive evidence that the designers intended to allow an Intimidate check to have a particular effect on a PC.

It's not, or rather it's not sufficient evidence. But it is evidence against the idea that they cannot do so when paired with other things. There's a repeated claim that alternate explanations have to find support for their interpretations in the rules outside the premise. If we apply this here, there is zero support outside the premise that monster/NPC proficiencies are meant to only be used on other monsters/NPCs. Like, there's nothing anywhere to suggest this, instead it's an unsupported required interpretation to prevent these from being a problem for the premise.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm still somewhat bemused at the assumption that there is a correct interpretation to be made of the rules.

I don't see why that should be. Especially with this edition.

At times, it reads like an argument about the interpetation of scripture.

This is, in effect, the entire point I'm trying to make. I'm not supporting the NPC vs PC argument, I'm trying to show that the only PC argument is just as bad.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thankfully, since you don't put much stock into his rulings, we can also safely dismiss how his ruling would support your argument on this matter.

It actually counters it. Unless we're assuming that observing, cataloguing, and interpreting another PC's emotional state is a matter of things you already know and has nothing to do with thinking.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Nope. The section for abilities and how to use abilities checks specifically says that bother PCs and Monsters used ability checks to complete tasks.

Oh, yes. When I said it was explicitly player -> monster I was referring to the sections on social manipulation, not general skill usage.

Anyway, I was about to write that I think a lot of this comes down to how much weight one puts on the passage from page 174. Which is supported by this:

We'd have to alter this text to exclude certain tasks from Monsters or the use of certain ability checks in use of those tasks. We also have to carve out an exception for any such ability used according to the rules in a contest with a PC, such as the Insight vs Deception one mentioned.

I don't think you do have to keep repeating exceptions, if you believe the exceptions are inviolate. Charm and sleep spells don't bother saying, "...unless the target has immunity." Weapon attacks don't carry the proviso, "...unless the target has immunity to slashing" or "or half that much, if the target has resistance to slashing".

Likewise, I don't think it's necessary to keep putting in parentheticals that players make their own decisions. The opposite, in fact: when an ability can override the rule, it is described as an exception to the general rule. Which is what I see in the rules.

But, again, that's only true if you give a lot of weight to page 174. I do, but only because I already have that belief. You don't, so...yeah, your interpretation also makes sense.

And, finally, we have to create a distinction between knowledge and thinking for knowledge skills to function. I mean, I covered all of this already, multiple times, do I need to repeat it every time? All of these things have to be touched to allow for the Roleplaying Rule.

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between belief and knowledge, as @Charlaquin laid out above. If you have some reason why that's insufficient, I'm not following it. Is it possible you are arguing that there is no difference between day and night, with the proof being dawn and dusk? If so, it might be interesting to find hypothetical play examples that sit right on that boundary. So far, I've yet to hear an example where I find the distinction unclear.

As some other posters have pointed out, NONE OF THIS MATTERS. You claim to not be invoking rule zero, but I will: people can play however they want, so this is not an important argument. It's just interesting. But you seem to be getting snippy and offended, as if people are trolling you or doubting your sincerity. I don't think that's the case.

 

[clearstream]

Likewise, I don't think it's necessary to keep putting in parentheticals that players make their own decisions. The opposite, in fact: when an ability can override the rule, it is described as an exception to the general rule. Which is what I see in the rules.

But, again, that's only true if you give a lot of weight to page 174. I do, but only because I already have that belief. You don't, so...yeah, your interpretation also makes sense.

Regarding 174, what do you make of "Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's." The example is of a monster trying to force open - pry one might say - a door that a character is holding closed.

To me, it seems reasonably well entailed that - at least so far as contests go - monsters will use skills in efforts against characters. There's no carve out for social skills here, and indeed many - scores of - monsters have social skills. The example in the rules text reads equally well as - when a monster tries to pry information that an adventurer is trying to withhold.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't suggest a dichotomy: it is not all or nothing.

Ah. Then it seems I misunderstood your argument. Sorry about that.

But look, you continue asking for a special reference to a DM's ability to decide a game mechanic overrides player decisions over what their character thinks, says, and does (suspending roleplaying in that respect.) In doing so, are you able to explain why you ignore how the game is ordinarily played? The DM is incessantly overriding player decisions over what their character thinks, says, and does: if a special carve out were required, it would be for social skills. And I have an idea about why might not notice that.

I do not believe I am ignoring how the game is normally played. Many things do not override a player’s ability to decide what their character thinks, says, and does, and many things that do have specific exceptions given in the rules. An improvised action taken with the goal of forcing a PC to make a certain decision does not fall into either of those categories,

Thinking about @Swarmkeeper's normal room, here is an attempt to illustrate the idea. A player C creates a fighter and reaches 3rd level, choosing Champion (because as you will see, they are a champ!) The following exchange ensues:

C: I fly over to where the dragons are and...
DM: Um, look, your character cannot fly, maybe if...
C: But don't I get to decide what my character does (points at PHB175)
DM: ...
C: Okay, well if I can't fly there I teleport to...
DM: Sorry, but you also do not have the ability to teleport, would you...
C: Right, I dematerialise the dragons from here then, by thinking at them psionically!
DM: ...

So, C is declaring actions that have no chance of success. Their character lacks the ability to fly, teleport, or dematerialize dragons psionically (I take it - there are abilities that the character might have that could allow them to do those things, but it seems from context that the PC lacks such abilities). The player can decide their character tries these things, but since they can’t succeed, they are not uncertain and fail without need for a check.

Later
DM: The dwarf claims to know nothing about it, but...
C: I want to know if he's telling the truth!
DM: Okay, you can use your Insight against the dwarf's Deception
C: That's not right - I decide what my character thinks!
DM: Yes, but - your Insight is pretty good and he's willing to answer your, perhaps if you just roll...
C: Nope, there's no uncertainty here, he's lying!!
DM: ...

I’ve already gone around with Ovinomancer about why the idea that telling the player their character knows or doesn’t know something is different than telling them what their character thinks.

Much later, C finally encounters a dragon
DM: Okay, so you failed your Wisdom saving throw against Frightful Presence and..
C: Oh no, nope, no way. I decide what my character thinks, says and does, and my character is not frightened - it doesn't affect me. Chaaarrrrge!!!
DM: ...

Frightful Presence contains a specific exception to the general rule that the player decides what their character does.

What I believe you are overlooking is that DMs constantly, as a matter of necessity, in order that the game can function at all override what players decide their characters think, say and do. So far as I can make out, that blindness is caused by compartmentalizing every other case where that happens, from a small set of cases under social interaction. Or here is the question: how do you believe the game works - how are game mechanics applied - if a DM is not expected to ordinarily override a player's freedom to decide their character thinks, says, or does (judiciously suspending some facet of roleplay, in each case)?

I don’t know how to answer this, except to say that the game works fine with the DM only being expected to override the player’s freedom to decide what their character thinks, says, and does when the rules provide a specific exception to that general principle. I think @iserith has a document demonstrating action adjudication, you could read that if you want an example of what it looks like in play.

The note of difference - and this is highlighted by the normal room example - is that outside of social interaction players habitually go along with that overriding, so that in play it feels more like a constraint on what they choose to do rather that a suspension of roleplay even though it is founded upon a suspension of roleplay. Players don't choose to say that dragon fear doesn't affect them (when they fail their saves), even though it is deciding a fact about how their character thinks.

Choice is the difference, yes. I have been framing the actions that we’re debating about as attempts to force the PC to make a particular decision for a reason. Perhaps my point would be clearer if I phrased it as “attempts to force the player to make a particular decision for their character”?

And that is the difference that I find you and some others here somehow oblivious to. My silly example has a serious intent: I hoped to show how dysfunctional the game will be if a player doesn't come into it with that continuous concession to mechanics already in mind. And that is what is happening in regard to expectations around social interaction: hence I say that they're smuggled into a special category.

I don’t think your example has demonstrated that attempts to force a player to make a particular decision for their character is being smuggled into a special category.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, yes. When I said it was explicitly player -> monster I was referring to the sections on social manipulation, not general skill usage.

Anyway, I was about to write that I think a lot of this comes down to how much weight one puts on the passage from page 174. Which is supported by this:


I don't think you do have to keep repeating exceptions, if you believe the exceptions are inviolate. Charm and sleep spells don't bother saying, "...unless the target has immunity." Weapon attacks don't carry the proviso, "...unless the target has immunity to slashing" or "or half that much, if the target has resistance to slashing".

Likewise, I don't think it's necessary to keep putting in parentheticals that players make their own decisions. The opposite, in fact: when an ability can override the rule, it is described as an exception to the general rule. Which is what I see in the rules.

Show me the override in Charm Person that cannot be similarly explained away as only applying to non-PCs because the Roleplaying Rule shields the PCs. This is my point that Charm Person has the same level of exception that social moves do. There's nothing there that indicates that it overrides the Roleplaying Rule that is any more explicit that the descriptions of the social moves or that isn't exactly as susceptible to the same reasoning that says that social moves are not uncertain. Charm Person makes no specific exception at all and could be as easily read to only apply to monsters and NPCs just like the monster proficiencies in social moves are considered to be only applicable to other monsters and NPCs.

But, again, that's only true if you give a lot of weight to page 174. I do, but only because I already have that belief. You don't, so...yeah, your interpretation also makes sense.

This is the crux. If you aren't privileging the Roleplaying Rule, then the argument falters. And the privilege of the Roleplaying Rule is based on an assumption made to specifically privilege the Roleplaying Rule. We don't see this argument formed elsewhere, and in fact this very privileging of the Roleplaying Rule forces some rather tortured interpretations of other, more clearly stated rules.

I think there's a pretty clear distinction between belief and knowledge, as @Charlaquin laid out above. If you have some reason why that's insufficient, I'm not following it. Is it possible you are arguing that there is no difference between day and night, with the proof being dawn and dusk? If so, it might be interesting to find hypothetical play examples that sit right on that boundary. So far, I've yet to hear an example where I find the distinction unclear.

I have a good deal of knowledge about calculus. I don't, however, remember everything about calculus. In fact, some things I intentionally do not retain. And the reason for that is that I can rebuild that knowledge by extrapolation from the principles I do have committed to memory. And yet, the end result of that thinking isn't anything but knowledge -- once complete, it's no different that I now know this bit of how to do calculus than the bits I recalled before. Both are knowledge, and both can be further utilized -- at least until I discard the new bits again. Foundationally, this is true of many disciplines -- you learn how to think because that's what creates new knowledge. The process of what I know and what I think are inseparable.

But, let's look at a game example. A Wizard has run across some runes. He tries to recall what he knows about these runes. He does so. We're going to say that this Wizard has just invoked knowledge and did no thinking at all in matching what he sees to what he recalls? I mean, let's say that knowledge and thinking are separate. The Wizard recalls knowledge about runes. Cool. How does he apply this knowledge to read these runes without thinking? How can we say that the Wizard has matched up his recollection to his observation without ever once having to evaluate or consider if this rune looks more like this recalled one or that recalled one? Is there no interpretation between languages going on? I mean, should I have to tell the player what the runes mean but use that ancient language to do so, and let the player be interpreter to a different language? If I provide the translation, have I told the player which interpretation his character thinks it more or less right -- have I provided all the possible ways it could be interpreted and translated, or have I provided a clear translation that elides all of this thinking and application of knowledge?

And, so far, I've completely avoided actual scientific literature on memory, recall, and cognition. Going there really shows that these things are not separate.

As some other posters have pointed out, NONE OF THIS MATTERS. You claim to not be invoking rule zero, but I will: people can play however they want, so this is not an important argument. It's just interesting. But you seem to be getting snippy and offended, as if people are trolling you or doubting your sincerity. I don't think that's the case.

Sigh. The primary point of the argument that I am contesting is to claim that this one interpretation is actually better than the others -- it's more epistemologically sound, I believe was an early claim. That it makes more sense and has fewer disruptions to the other rules. That a new player would easily tease this interpretation out because it's the most clear one to have. All of these are wrong. It's not a better interpretation. It causes multiple disruptions to other rules. And new players would be hard pressed to pull this out of a single sentence on page 174 that isn't talking about action adjudication but is discussing what roleplaying can be (and it's not even complete there). If none of it matters, then why are these claims to superiority being made? And why is my attempt to show that they are not superior somehow more worthy of being told that it doesn't matter and I should let it go than the ones trying to say that their way is better? Hell, I agree it's better, I just don't agree with the argument that the rules make it so. They don't.

 

[clearstream]

So, C is declaring actions that have no chance of success. Their character lacks the ability to fly, teleport, or dematerialize dragons psionically (I take it - there are abilities that the character might have that could allow them to do those things, but it seems from context that the PC lacks such abilities). The player can decide their character tries these things, but since they can’t succeed, they are not uncertain and fail without need for a check.

Okay. Now can you explain why they have no chance of success? If the roleplay rule prevails over all, why can't C say what their character does?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Regarding 174, what do you make of "Sometimes one character's or monster's efforts are directly opposed to another's." The example is of a monster trying to force open - pry one might say - a door that a character is holding closed.

To me, it seems reasonably well entailed that - at least so far as contests go - monsters will use skills in efforts against characters. There's no carve out for social skills here, and indeed many - scores of - monsters have social skills. The example in the rules text reads equally well as - when a monster tries to pry information that an adventurer is trying to withhold.

Let me clarify, I don't think there's a "carve-out" for social skills. Monsters can take actions, and the DM can rule that resolution of those actions requires a roll, and that roll may use the proficiency bonus from a skill. No carve-outs.

But a consequence of that outcome...regardless of which attribute or skill were used...cannot, in my interpretation, be that a player doesn't control action declarations for their character ("except exceptions").

So, as I said up-thread, if you want to rule that the orc has successfully intimidated the player character, go for it. But the player character still gets to decide how their character reacts to being intimidated, and that might be something that, to the DM, seems like the opposite of being intimidated. In my mind that makes the "intimidated" declaration moot, and you might as well just describe the orc as intimidating. But to each their own.

By the way, a variant of the "monster vs. monster persuasion" scenario might be that a PC and NPC A are both trying to persuade NPC B to do opposite things. ("Throw me the idol!" "No, throw ME the idol!"). This can be resolved by having both the PC and NPC A roll Charisma (Persuasion).

 

[clearstream]

So, as I said up-thread, if you want to rule that the orc has successfully intimidated the player character, go for it. But the player character still gets to decide how their character reacts to being intimidated, and that might be something that, to the DM, seems like the opposite of being intimidated.

Would you agree that a player participating in good faith, would play their character as intimidated? Frightened, anxious to avoid provoking, that sort of thing?

In my mind that makes the "intimidated" declaration moot, and you might as well just describe the orc as intimidating.

Reflecting on your answer to the above, would you agree that a player participating in bad faith might ignore or break any rule? They wouldn't be much fun to play with, but then I'm not sure the player who refuses to allow an obviously extremely dangerous and threatening orc to seem threatening to them would be much fun to play with, either.

But to each their own.

When you say each to their own, are you saying that you favour players who are participating in good faith ignoring the results of game mechanics? Or perhaps doing so just within the bounds of social interaction?

Say the players have formed an intention that the DM is not privy to, and that an NPC with strong Insight is highly interested in finding out. Are you saying that if on honest rolls the contest of NPC Insight to PC Deception should be ignored by the player, and they should lie to the DM about their intention? Is that each to their own?