D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

this arguement is going nowhere... although to be honest I don't see a mod yet so it is going well.

Growth mindset!

 

[Bill Zebub]

yeah last year I went round and round with some of these same posters on wording. Some think everything has to be a declaired action to the point that when I asked about knowledge checks they said they would prompt there PCs to say something like "I think hard to remember the information" becuse asking if they know is wrong and calling for a "can I use arcana to know this" is wrong... it is a weird word policing thing and why I have only jumped in like every 20ish pages here...

More seriously...

I agree it can seem a little bit silly to force this language...

...AND I still think it's a good practice because it's really hard to break people of the habit of saying "I'll make an Investigation check..." while grabbing their dice. When I stop wrestling with this every time I DM, I'll stop asking people to describe how they try to remember something.

 

[Charlaquin]

More seriously...

I agree it can seem a little bit silly to force this language...

...AND I still think it's a good practice because it's really hard to break people of the habit of saying "I'll make an Investigation check..." while grabbing their dice. When I stop wrestling with this every time I DM, I'll stop asking people to describe how they try to remember something.

A goal-and-approach declaration for an attempt to recall lore also has two benefits over just asking for a check: First, it reveals information about the character’s background, which is fun for players. “I think back to the stories my grandfather used to tell of his adventures to try and remember if he fought this type of monster and how he defeated them” is a neat, organic way to show off an element of your backstory about how your grandfather was an adventurer and his stories inspired you to follow in his footsteps. Second, it gives the DM the opportunity to consider what information the player is trying to recall and where the character might have learned it and decide that the character would absolutely have learned that there (or couldn’t possibly have done so), and rule automatic success (or automatic failure). So, while it may sound like pointless word policing, there are actually practical differences that some DMs (such as myself) find worthwhile.

 

[iserith]

I agree it can seem a little bit silly to force this language...

Plus, it's not being forced at all. The game is a conversation. A good conversation in my view is one in which the participants understand each other and that flows well. Being clear and concise benefits the conversation accordingly. If I have to stop to ask what the player means by "making an Investigation check," this just prolongs the conversation. As well, by not being clear, the player is just making it harder on the DM to adjudicate without making assumptions or establishing what the character is doing, which is not the DM's role. This can all be avoided if the player holds up their end of the conversation and uses their words to tell me what their character does and hopes to gain.

And this is before we even get into how the smart play is to not want to make ability checks in the first place and work toward that end wherever possible. Or how it helps better build the story we're all creating together by having this clear, flowing conversation.

 

[clearstream]

Can saying boo succeed at frightening this character? Well, according to the rules for roleplaying, no, it can’t, because the player decides what their character thinks, feels, and does. So, it is not uncertain and therefore not appropriate to call for an ability check in the first place.

Again, there is inconsistency. Frightening Presence has a chance of overriding "player decides". (If player fails their save, they can't decide to approach the dragon.) Charm has a chance of overriding player decides. (If player fails their save, they can't decide to treat their charmer as a neutral or hostile acquaintance.) Therefore player decides is uncertain under some game mechanics. There is nothing that tells us to exclude social skills from such mechanics. To do so is arbitrary.

Some spells and other abilities, like Charm Person, contain specific exceptions to this general procedure.

Again, arbitrary. The specific of - an NPC passes off a disguise - is adequate to form an exception to the possible general of - players decide. Further, players decide is not an exception to the general of DM decides if a check is called for.

I don’t believe that social interaction is never uncertain. I believe that, in the absence of a more specific rule contradicting the rules surrounding the procedure of play and roleplaying, an action (social or otherwise) that is made with the attempt to force a PC to make a certain decision is never uncertain.

The social interaction rules provide said more specific rules. It is false to say that there is never a possibility (uncertainty) that a PC will be able to or forced to make a certain decision. Game mechanics regularly establish such uncertainty. The uncertainty argument presupposes that there is never uncertainty in players deciding, but that is not sustained - other than by turning a blind eye to or pleading as special cases everywhere else that uncertainty is established.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, there is inconsistency. Frightening Presence has a chance of overriding "player decides". (If player fails their save, they can't decide to approach the dragon.) Charm has a chance of overriding player decides. (If player fails their save, they can't decide to treat their charmer as a neutral or hostile acquaintance.) Therefore player decides is uncertain under some game mechanics.

It is uncertain ONLY when there is a very specific mechanic that contradicts or creates an ex exception to the player decides rule.

There is nothing that tells us to exclude social skills from such mechanics. To do so is arbitrary.

This is false. There's nothing arbitrary about it. The exclusion is based purely on reason and rules. Since exclusion =/= inclusion, every social rule example deals entirely with NPCs and there are no social specific contradictions or exceptions to the player decides rule, we can reason that social skills are excluded. This is backed up by RAI being to exclude them as we surmised.

Again, arbitrary. The specific of - an NPC passes off a disguise - is adequate to form an exception to the possible general of - players decide.

Again, reason is literally the opposite of arbitrary. It doesn't matter if the NPC passes off a disguise. Nothing about a disguise prevents the player from deciding. He can be suspicious of the NPC or not as the player decides.

Further, players decide is not an exception to the general of DM decides if a check is called for.

There is no such rule. The rule is that the DM calls for a check if the outcome is in doubt. This does not contradict or create an exception to the rule that the player decides. If the player decides yes or no, the outcome is not in doubt and the DM rule never comes into play.

 

[clearstream]

Plus, it's not being forced at all. The game is a conversation. A good conversation in my view is one in which the participants understand each other and that flows well. Being clear and concise benefits the conversation accordingly. If I have to stop to ask what the player means by "making an Investigation check," this just prolongs the conversation. As well, by not being clear, the player is just making it harder on the DM to adjudicate without making assumptions or establishing what the character is doing, which is not the DM's role. This can all be avoided if the player holds up their end of the conversation and uses their words to tell me what their character does and hopes to gain.

I agree that the game should be a good conversation. In conversations with friends, and also in special realms such as within the magic circle, people regularly draw on a vernacular. If "I use investigation to..." is part of that vernacular for a group (just as "I throw fireball" can be) then that promotes and does not hinder good conversation.

And this is before we even get into how the smart play is to not want to make ability checks in the first place and work toward that end wherever possible. Or how it helps better build the story we're all creating together by having this clear, flowing conversation.

The two are not at odds. It can be the vernacular to invoke game mechanics explicitly, and still a group might be playing according to their standards of smart, which for some groups includes avoiding making checks as much as possible.

 

[clearstream]

It is uncertain ONLY when there is a very specific mechanic that contradicts or creates an ex exception to the player decides rule.

It is uncertain if the DM deems it uncertain, and the fact that some game mechanics lean into uncertainty over whether players will decide, easily justifies a DM (were such justification needed.)

This is false. There's nothing arbitrary about it. The exclusion is based purely on reason and rules. Since exclusion =/= inclusion, every social rule example deals entirely with NPCs and there are no social specific contradiction or exceptions, can reason that social skills are excluded. This is backed up by RAI being to exclude them as we surmised.

I am addressing the RAW.

Again, reason is literally the opposite of arbitrary. It doesn't matter if the NPC passes off a disguise. Nothing about a disguise prevents the player from deciding. He can be suspicious of the NPC or not as the player decides.

There's nothing in the rules that makes that so. NPCs have social skills. There are situations where it makes sense to use those against player characters.

There is no such rule. The rule is that the DM calls for a check if the outcome is in doubt. This does not contradict or create an exception to the rule that the player decides. If the player decides, the outcome is not in doubt and the DM rule never comes into play.

It is up to the DM to decide the outcome is in doubt. You might say - I feel like X is not uncertain - for instance, @Swarmkeeper game an example where it seemed clear that they felt that walking across a normal room would not be uncertain. When you are DMing, such judgments are up to you. Another DM might deem certain something you feel is uncertain, or the converse. In this case, there are game mechanics that demonstrate that player decides is not always certain.

 

[Maxperson]

It is uncertain if the DM deems it uncertain,

The DM has to create a house rule to do that as there is no rule that does so. We've said repeatedly that such house rules are fine. It's the erroneous claim that RAW supports such a conclusion that we object to.

I am addressing the RAW.

There is no RAW that supports your claim. Lack of exclusion =/= inclusion and lack of inclusion is the best you guys have.

There's nothing in the rules that makes that so. NPCs have social skills. There are situations where it makes sense to use those against player characters.

Correct. So use them against the PCs. Per RAW the player gets to decide success or failure though, not the DM. Not unless the DM creates a house rule anyway.

It is up to the DM to decide the outcome is in doubt.

Not by RAW it's not.

You might say - I feel like X is not uncertain - for instance, @Swarmkeeper game an example where it seemed clear that they felt that walking across a normal room would not be uncertain.

This is a Red Herring. We are talking only about social skills, not physical acts.

When you are DMing, such judgments are up to you. Another DM might deem certain something you feel is uncertain, or the converse. In this case, there are game mechanics that demonstrate that player decides is not always certain.

Unless the DM creates a house rule, it doesn't matter what the DM thinks is uncertain when it comes to social skills used against PCs. The rule is that the players decide and nothing you've shown or said counters that.

 

[iserith]

I agree that the game should be a good conversation. In conversations with friends, and also in special realms such as within the magic circle, people regularly draw on a vernacular. If "I use investigation to..." is part of that vernacular for a group (just as "I throw fireball" can be) then that promotes and does not hinder good conversation.


The two are not at odds. It can be the vernacular to invoke game mechanics explicitly, and still a group might be playing according to their standards of smart, which for some groups includes avoiding making checks as much as possible.

Except when, as I've often seen happen in other people's games, the DM assumes or establishes what the PC is doing because the "I use investigation to..." didn't offer reasonable specificity about what the character does. The player objects: "I wouldn't have touched the doorknob!" as the DM begins to describe a trap in motion. Or instead the DM has to ask before resolving the check: "Do you touch the doorknob?" which is always a sign that you shouldn't touch the doorknob. None of this can happen in my games. As well, because my players are clear and concise, my role as DM becomes very easy. I can quickly determine if the outcome of the action is uncertain, what success and failure look like, and what the DC is. I don't have to ask them questions to figure it out.

There's also no rules support in D&D 5e for players asking or saying they are "using skills." There was in D&D 4e, explicitly, so I definitely get where (for some) this mode of play may come from. But not in this game. I find playing the game in a way the rules support makes things a lot easier.