D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

I fail to see any problem with this at all. The DM is simply using the roll as both a success-fail determinant (as in, was the DC met or not) and as an informant to the narration of said success-failure. I do much the same thing, and would still were I running 5e.

Fair enough, and nothing wrong with it, for a house rule.

Capable doesn't mean perfect, and sometimes when they fail at something they're gonna fail hard. Flip side: sometimes they're going to succeed without any apparent effort as this time everything just goes right for them.

Of course capable doesn't mean perfect. Failing hard is often part of the failure condition stakes that are laid out for the DC presented for the ability check. That's the whole concept of "meaningful consequence for failure" espoused in the ability check rules in 5e. Sometimes fail conditions are worse than other times. Failing hard need not be determined by the actual number on the die - and, while there's nothing wrong with playing that way, indeed this manner of failing hard (where the lower the number, the worse the result) is not supported by 5e RAW.

A hard-coded crit system isn't required for the DM to use the roll to inform narration, and in fact might be overkill as it'd then force changes in narration in situations where none might be needed.

True.

 

[Maxperson]

This is hair-splitting. Here is the text -

It's not hairsplitting since there's nothing supporting social skills being used against PCs. And we know that RAI is for them not to be used against PCs.

An NPC using deception could successfully make a player-character believe that NPC is someone who they are not (i.e. pass themselves off in a disguise.)

The roleplay is the lie or ambiguity. The DM narrates the NPC saying something to the PC that is deceptive. At that point the player either believes it, doesn't believe it, or is unsure. If he's unsure then he will try to figure out if the NPC is lying. There is no actual deception roll unless a PC tries to see if what was told during that roleplay is deceiving. At that point the DM might call for opposing rolls to see if the player can pick up the deception or not. That's all insight is good for. Picking up deception or not. An insight roll cannot result in a player being forced to believe the lie. The deception roll is done in opposition to that insight roll.

 

[clearstream]

Seems like a distinction without difference to me. As the charmed condition is a specific rule that contradicts a more general rule, whether the charmed creature can “try” to attack the charmer or not really has no bearing on the issue at hand.

My post that you responded to, was responding to @Swarmkeeper. And @Bill Zebub made similar claims. I guess now that you do not agree with their claims in this regard?

Here is what @Swarmkeeper said

A player says how their character thinks, speaks, and acts. They can indicate an action the character is attempting to do. The "does" part, the actual outcome of the action, is adjudicated by the DM.
"My character flies to the moon"
Auto-fail...
"Want to try something else?"
This explicitly does not violate the roleplaying rule.

 

[Charlaquin]

My post that you responded to, was responding to @Swarmkeeper. And @Bill Zebub made similar claims. I guess now that you do not agree with their claims in this regard?

Here is what @Swarmkeeper said

No, I agree with them. I said something similar in response to you.

 

[clearstream]

It's not hairsplitting since there's nothing supporting social skills being used against PCs. And we know that RAI is for them not to be used against PCs.

The roleplay is the lie or ambiguity. The DM narrates the NPC saying something to the PC that is deceptive. At that point the player either believes it, doesn't believe it, or is unsure. If he's unsure then he will try to figure out if the NPC is lying. There is no actual deception roll unless a PC tries to see if what was told during that roleplay is deceiving. At that point the DM might call for opposing rolls to see if the player can pick up the deception or not. That's all insight is good for. Picking up deception or not. An insight roll cannot result in a player being forced to believe the lie. The deception roll is done in opposition to that insight roll.

What the character believes the facts of the matter are - what they think - is being decided by the social interaction mechanics. Or does the belief that NPC Q is in fact NPC Z in your view work as a kind of void in the mind, given rise to solely by an absence of facts to the contrary? And by no means installed by positive facts such as they look like Z?

 

[clearstream]

No, I agree with them. I said something similar in response to you.

In which case it matters that charm prevents trying.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Several posters have made similar arguments, and it is splitting hairs. A character who was intimidated by an NPC seeking to pry information from them could try to withhold that information, but what they do is spill it.

Well, you have been asking me to clarify my interpretation, so while the above might be the way you play, it’s a little cheeky to “correct” my explanation with your own.

 

[Charlaquin]

In which case it matters that charm prevents trying.

It doesn’t, because unlike in the example of the player saying their character flies across the room (something the general “roleplaying rule” says they can try, but they have no means of succeeding at unless they have a fly speed), the rules for the charmed condition contain a specific exception to the more general “roleplaying rule” - they say the character can’t attack the charmer. Whether a DM decides that they can’t attack because they can’t even try, or they can try but won’t be successful, seems like splitting hairs to me. Either way, the charmed character can’t attack the charmer, because a specific rule says so.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is an interesting one, as it would make a big difference in the fiction just where in the sequence of events that auto-fail kicks in.

Can the charmed person not even try to attack, i.e. the auto-fail kicks in before he even draws a weapon or raises his arm to strike?
Can the charmed person go through all the motions of attacking with the auto-fail only kicking in to force the to-hit roll to be a miss?
Does the auto-fail kick in at some point between the above two end-points?

Relevant in that an observer - including the charmer - wouldn't likely notice anything odd happening in the first example above but certainly would in the second and may or may not in the third.

In which case it matters that charm prevents trying.

Sure, if we want to split the hair further, we might ask: when does the attack happen? When it is declared? When the character draws its weapon? When the roll happens? Does it really matter? It is going to fail regardless of when one says the "attack" happens. I believe charm does not prevent trying. The mechanic here prevents the outcome of the behavior, not the behavior itself. I mean, a DM would be within their rights to say it does prevent trying and that may even be the RAI, but I don't think it matters in the end as long as the attack doesn't hit. That is the important part of the mechanic. Roleplay it out however you like, players.

To be clear, as DM, I would stop the player from rolling to attack the Charmer. The Charmed PC cannot carry out the attack. The outcome is certain. No roll.

 

[clearstream]

It doesn’t, because unlike in the example of the player saying their character flies across the room (something the general “roleplaying rule” says they can try, but they have no means of succeeding at unless they have a fly speed), the rules for the charmed condition contain a specific exception to the more general “roleplaying rule” - they say the character can’t attack the charmer. Whether a DM decides that they can’t attack because they can’t even try, or they can try but won’t be successful, seems like splitting hairs to me. Either way, the charmed character can’t attack the charmer, because a specific rule says so.

I realise that these arguments are put forward, not from bad faith, but from prior commitments. Game mechanics intrude on roleplaying. They do so in many ways. Sometimes preventing the player from deciding to do a certain thing (a charmed player-character can't decide to attack). Sometimes deciding what they think (a player-character deceived by an NPC disguise will given facts in mind that are contrary to the truth).

On exceptions to general. The argument you put to my reading amounts to lack of narrow enough specification to satisfy you as constituting exceptions. You hold there is a general rule - roleplay - which is not a rule but a definition in context. Even taken as a rule, social interaction skills can be used - possibly should only be used - as game mechanics in perfectly well specified ways. There really is no lack of specificity in how to use them. And there need be no lack of specificity in the outcome of their use. When used in such ways, they will satisfy the conditions judged satisfactory for the use of other game mechanics. (And this is given that there was any issue with their specificity in the first place, which I do not concede.)

On lack of uncertainty. This is a simple case of cart-before-the-horse. A DM not only may, but must, decide what is uncertain. They should also consider other factors, like stakes. It is up to the DM in every case to decide what is uncertain and where the stakes are high enough to matter. There are no carve outs for social interactions in the printed rules. You may believe that social interaction is never uncertain, but that is only because of your prior commitments on the matter. It is normal that DMs will differ on when they will and will not call for checks. The best claim to higher ground belongs to the many lines on the DM's remit, and not to a few words that are about how to roleplay.

I understand that you are unable to see it that way: perhaps that is as far as we can get.