D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

Not necessarily, first the roll is because there is uncertainty in the reaction, and second, the DM may (for example but there are tons of other ways to play this) roleplay the NPC as not visibly intimidated, but internally impressed (and will take this into account for future interactions), or extremely annoyed, or whatever. It might also depend how the intimidation is roleplayed, whether it's forceful, or more subtile, etc. So many circumstances, personalities, thankfully it's an open game.

You are free to play that way, of course, but you're not following the play loop as outlined in the rules. If the player declares that they are trying to get the Orc to back down by intimidating them, and the DM asks for a roll, then the roll is to determine if they succeed in their goal. Which is to get them to back down.

If you are asking them to roll for another reason, then you're not following the prescribed play loop.

 

[clearstream]

Yup, I've said that many times.

And it's not a contradiction, it's specific > general.

As I've also said, the text isn't entirely clear on which rules are more general and more specific. So there's some interpretation.

Right. Perhaps a point of misunderstanding has been that when I am thinking about the social interaction skills, I am thinking about their application to specific cases. Example, the (NPC) sage wants to pry a piece of specific information from their (PC) prisoner.

The social skills are designed in a way that suggests they are to be used with specific outcomes in mind. The examples are all pretty concrete. So I never held the worry that they were not specific enough.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Right. Perhaps a point of misunderstanding has been that when I am thinking about the social interaction skills, I am thinking about their application to specific cases. Example, the (NPC) sage wants to pry a piece of specific information from their (PC) prisoner.

The social skills are designed in a way that suggests they are to be used with specific outcomes in mind. The examples are all pretty concrete. So I never held the worry that they were not specific enough.

That sounds to me like a specific goal, but there is no specific rule which says, "If a creature rolls (X) on a Charisma (Intimidation) check against another creature, the Cooperative condition is imposed on the target." With a corresponding Cooperative condition, however that would be phrased.

Anyway, as I said upthread, if you really want to compel the player, make the threats believable. A single Orc just isn't intimidating to high level characters. A single Orc, with another 40 lurking in the balconies with crossbows, might be. The player's lack of perfect information (and the DM's ability to magically make 40 orcs appear) can make threats plausible. Why try to force players to pretend they are intimidated?

 

[Maxperson]

Not that I saw. Ovinomancer referenced it, but didn’t link to it.

EDIT: I went ahead and googled it. Here’s an archive of the thread:

Will a NPC be able to make a Charisma Check to affect a PC behavior or emotions?

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.google.com

Interestingly, he does say that the DM can use the result of a Charisma check to inform their description of the action, just not to force the PC to think, act, or feel a certain way (I don’t think the RAW really supports that, but I don’t disagree with him that the DM can do that.) He also addresses use of Wisdom (Insight) and says that it can indeed be used to determine another PC’s emotional state, which seems to support my assertion that the rules don’t consider determining what a PC knows to be the same thing as forcing them to think a certain way.

A PC using insight to see if another is lying is also okay. I've had that happen a few times over the years.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. Nothing in the rules supports the players asking to make ability checks. I think ultimately he's either using shorthand or talking about how he plays the game, not what the actual rules say. If the RAI is that players are supposed to ask to make checks, then the RAW must be very badly written because there's no way you can get to that intention from the text. What I think ultimately is that not even game designers are immune from picking up and keeping habits from other games.

This. I've heard him describe his game and he is very loose with rules.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

It really depends on the rules. With 5e there are a lot of rules that are written vaguely and have multiple interpretations that are valid. Then there a bunch that are very clear and if you are interpreting it in a way that is other than the crystal clear interpretation, it's a misinterpretation.

 

[clearstream]

That sounds to me like a specific goal, but there is no specific rule which says, "If a creature rolls (X) on a Charisma (Intimidation) check against another creature, the Cooperative condition is imposed on the target." With a corresponding Cooperative condition, however that would be phrased.

I've tried, but I keep hitting the wall of arbitrariness as to what is on and off the table.

It seems like a prior commitment is made, before considering how to interpret any of the rules, including how to judge the specificity of rules. That prior commitment then acts like a lense that colours all of the written rules. Scrutiny falls according to the light passing through that lense.

I find myself thinking of Wittgenstein's observations in Philosophical Investigations.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I've tried, but I keep hitting the wall of arbitrariness as to what is on and off the table.

It seems like a prior commitment is made, before considering how to interpret any of the rules, including how to judge the specificity of rules. That prior commitment then acts like a lense that colours all of the written rules. Scrutiny falls according to the light passing through that lense.

I find myself thinking of Wittgenstein's observations in Philosophical Investigations.

Well, that’s kind of an amazing coincidence, because I find myself thinking of barbecued brisket. Specifically the burnt ends. Mmmm.

Anyway, I don’t understand what part you find arbitrary. Is it the boundary, or how the boundary is implemented? Because I don’t know of a definition that is less arbitrary, unless it’s “The player controls their character’s thoughts and action declarations…unless the DM says otherwise.” But really that’s just as arbitrary of a definition and it’s implementation is even more arbitrary.

 

[Campbell]

Where do thoughts and feeling come into it? The text says nothing about thoughts and feelings. It only mentions what a character does.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Where do thoughts and feeling come into it? The text says nothing about thoughts and feelings. It only mentions what a character does.

Page 185.

("Feelings" would be an extrapolation from "thoughts", I suppose.)