D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

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.


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.


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.

Look, you don't give much weight to the "roleplaying rule" on p. 185. I get it. And that's fine. Play however you like.

But the problem with all your arguments...that others are being contradictory, or circular, or inconsistent, or using special pleading, or whatever other passive-aggressive criticism you have...is that you ignore that other people don't share that fundamental interpretation. Even though you have been told otherwise repeatedly.

It's like you're trying to argue with us that Pi is equal to 3.0, and your argument relies on showing how our calculations don't add up, but you keep replacing our 3.14 with your 3.0. Well, duh, of course it breaks down if you replace part of our argument with your argument.

If Rule 185 is taken to be a general case rule, then it takes a specific rule to override it. Charm spells, Frightening Presence, etc., explicitly have those specific rules. The standard play loop does not contain such a specific rule. And if the criteria for specific rule were low enough that the standard play loop did qualify, then basically everything would qualify, which would render the general rule meaningless.

 

[clearstream]

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.

That is not so. The contention is that a DM should always deem something that could fall within the definition of roleplay to be certain. That there is no scope for deeming it uncertain. Let's take that on face value and ask - is it true that player decides is never uncertain? Is there no precedent in the extant text to justify a DM deeming something that falls within the definition of roleplay to be uncertain?

Yes, there is such precedent. There are game mechanics all over the place that make it uncertain if players will get to decide, or what they may decide. It is false to say that player decides is never uncertain. That isn't a question of specific versus general, it is a question solely as to whether a DM is justified in the printed text in deeming anything that falls within the definition of roleplay to be uncertain. They are.

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

Indeed yes. The factual evidence is the best we have. We're not reading in language that doesn't exist in the rules.

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.

Again, false. No house rule is needed. DM decides if a check is called for. They should consider if there is a chance of failure, and what is at stake. Seeing as there is precedent for a chance of failure in relation to player decides, they are not house-ruling anything. Game mechanics include among them ability checks, skills, and among those deception, intimidation, persuasion and insight. Those are all game mechanics, although I realise some here are pleading a special class for them.

Not by RAW it's not.

Actually, per RAW it is expressly the case. RAW doesn't ask for a DM to consider precedent or metaphysical positions relating to free will. I'm entertaining that in order to tackle @Charlaquin's concern. An approach a DM could take in reaching their decision could be to say that yes, X does fall within that defined by roleplay, but as it happens I think players deciding is always uncertain. If they do, there are game mechanics that say something about free will, at least as it exists in the game world.

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

This is back to special pleading. I am addressing game mechanics. There are no physical acts in an imagined world.

 

[clearstream]

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.

If a group has that problem then I can see why they will need more specificity.

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.

Agreed. I am speaking of the vernacular - the language at the table - that eases conversation. Everyone knows that the DM will call for checks, per RAW. But the language at the table for a group may trip along smoothly if they employ a vernacular they are comfortable with.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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

I don't think physical acts vs. social skills is a useful distinction. It just so happens that social skills are more likely to bump into the roleplaying rule, so there's a high correlation, but the distinction isn't fundamental.

The orc might take a bite out of a steel plate in an attempt to intimidate the PCs, and it would still be up to the players to determine whether or not they found that intimidating. (I would, for the record.)

Also, this walking across the room example itself is a red herring and a bad example. The DM would have 100% authority to say there's uncertainty and ask for a roll. There might be an unknown element creating that uncertainty, or maybe it's a normal room and he's just be a DM that will soon find himself with an empty table. Either way, that's how the play loop works.

 

[iserith]

If a group has that problem then I can see why they will need more specificity.

Even if they don't, it sidesteps it completely so it doesn't arise. Flip on any actual play on Twitch or YouTube, or lurk in some Roll20/Discord games and you're likely to see it happen in my experience. And, as I also said, it's easier for the DM to adjudicate when players are reasonably specific.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Even if they don't, it sidesteps it completely so it doesn't arise. Flip on any actual play on Twitch or YouTube, or lurk in some Roll20/Discord games and you're likely to see it happen in my experience. And, as I also said, it's easier for the DM to adjudicate when players are reasonably specific.

Yeah, I see this happen all the time. It goes one of three ways:
1) The DM asks for clarification on the relevant detail, which is a clear indication that you should not, under any circumstances, touch the doorknob
2) The DM assumes the character touched the doorknob, which leads to unhappy players
3) The DM artfully threads the line of asking for more information without giving away the Thing You Don't Want To Do, all of which takes more time that would have been spent if the player had just been specific in the first place

 

[Maxperson]

That is not so. The contention is that a DM should always deem something that could fall within the definition of roleplay to be certain. That there is no scope for deeming it uncertain. Let's take that on face value and ask - is it true that player decides is never uncertain? Is there no precedent in the extant text to justify a DM deeming something that falls within the definition of roleplay to be uncertain?

Not that don't involve specific exceptions or contradictions like Charm Person and Menacing Strike.

Yes, there is such precedent. There are game mechanics all over the place that make it uncertain if players will get to decide, or what they may decide. It is false to say that player decides is never uncertain. That isn't a question of specific versus general, it is a question solely as to whether a DM is justified in the printed text in deeming anything that falls within the definition of roleplay to be uncertain. They are.

The specific beats general precedents are NOT precedents that show that normal social skills will work on PCs. They only set precedent that other specific abilities that generate specific exceptions or contradictions can override the player decides.

Indeed yes. The factual evidence is the best we have. We're not reading in language that doesn't exist in the rules.

No, but you are misinterpreting it. There are no exceptions or contradictions in the social skills that override the player decides. So while you can use them, it's up to the player to decide if they work or not.

The DM decides if a check is called for. They should consider if there is a chance of failure, and what is at stake. Seeing as there is precedent for a chance of failure in relation to player decides, they are not house-ruling anything. Game mechanics include among them ability checks, skills, and among those deception, intimidation, persuasion and insight. Those are all game mechanics, although I realise some here are pleading a special class for them.

You keep using a False Equivalence as your "example," though. Charm Person and the like are NOT the precedents you are looking for. No such precedent exists. You can't find anywhere an example of a social skill robbing the player of his right to decide.

Actually, per RAW it is expressly the case.

Show me then. Show me one example(precedent) of a social skill being used on a PC and forcing that player to have his PC think or behave in a manner he doesn't want to.

This is back to special pleading. I am addressing game mechanics. There are no physical acts in an imagined world.

Oh come off it. You know darn well I was talking about imagined physical acts within the game world.

 

[clearstream]

But the problem with all your arguments...that others are being contradictory, or circular, or inconsistent, or using special pleading, or whatever other passive-aggressive criticism you have...is that you ignore that other people don't share that fundamental interpretation. Even though you have been told otherwise repeatedly.

A handful of people here have developed a shared picture. I agree that they have that picture because of a fundamental interpretation. The criticism is not passive-aggressive, but focused on the kinds of arguments presented. What I've been told repeatedly is that some would like to claim the high ground. There is no such high ground.

It's like you're trying to argue with us that Pi is equal to 3.0, and your argument relies on showing how our calculations don't add up, but you keep replacing our 3.14 with your 3.0. Well, duh, of course it breaks down if you replace part of our argument with your argument.

That is an aspect of what I meant in my reference to Investigations. When it comes to meaning - particularly in games - we're dealing with self-supporting structures. As we come into the game, we bring far more than I think we are conscious of. So much in fact, that I think we can make ourselves blind to even the possibility of certain meanings.

I understand the arguments being made. I can see how the picture can look, but I can also see another picture. One that looks interesting, and so far as the RAW goes is better entailed.

If Rule 185 is taken to be a general case rule, then it takes a specific rule to override it. Charm spells, Frightening Presence, etc., explicitly have those specific rules. The standard play loop does not contain such a specific rule. And if the criteria for specific rule were low enough that the standard play loop did qualify, then basically everything would qualify, which would render the general rule meaningless.

It takes a game mechanic to override it. Skills are game mechanics. A character with athletics can't simply decide to jump further than their strength in feet, they either have to engage with uncertainty or perhaps the DM will say it is not possible. But athletics is just as imaginary as deception is: it's all fiction. I am saying that the DM may call for a check (something @Charlaquin concedes) and is justified in calling for a check (something @Charlaquin disagrees with.)

It's a complicated argument

1. Possibly, it comes down to whether anything within the definition of roleplay can be uncertain.
   1. Here for the sake of argument we concede that it is even at issue, i.e. that the 185 text counts as a general rule (notwithstanding reading as a definition)
2. It hasn't been shown that a DM needs to rely on precedent, which is what I think @Charlaquin is insisting on: there are likely numerous cases where a DM is expected to establish precedent (or just decide)
3. Alternatively, there could be an assumption that players deciding is never subject to uncertainty. I suppose we don't want to put this forward as an argument about human free will, so we have to look at it in game terms. In game terms, players sometimes don't decide. When does that happen? When a game mechanic applies. Are skills game mechanics? Yes. QED.
4. A secondary defence then comes into play claiming that uncertainty only occurs within the scope of certain exceptional mechanics. This is a suspect argument because formerly all we were asked for is evidence that player decides could be uncertain: the bar has been raised! And so far without any justification given (i.e. no justification as to why it even matters, seeing as all we wanted to show is that player decides could possibly be uncertain.)
5. Regarding this secondary defence, we do see clear cases of special pleading. X is specific enough, Y is not specific enough. Y is different from X for reasons. (Both are game mechanics. Both employ very specific means and can have very specific outcomes.)

Thus to now shift to a new layer of argumentation - that of undermining my right to even participate in the debate - is not ideal.

 

[clearstream]

Even if they don't, it sidesteps it completely so it doesn't arise. Flip on any actual play on Twitch or YouTube, or lurk in some Roll20/Discord games and you're likely to see it happen in my experience. And, as I also said, it's easier for the DM to adjudicate when players are reasonably specific.

I observe a pretty strong difference between play-for-audience and play-at-table. I notice far more description, more work put into roleplaying the character. So for me at least, I am not looking to meet a play-for-audience standard.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.)

Yes, which unlike the rules for making ability checks, the rules for Frightening Presence specifically state.

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.

See above.

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

Skills add proficiency bonuses to checks. Checks are made to resolve actions that are uncertain. An action made to force a PC’s decision is not uncertain, unless the rules for that specific action contradict the general rules of roleplaying and the pattern of play, which the rules for improvising an action do not. It’s really not complicated if you understand checks to be a part of the action resolution procedure rather than specific actions in and of themselves.

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

You’re skipping over a whole lot of gameplay process here to get to “an NPC passes off a disguise.” Depending on how the NPC tries to disguise themselves, success and failure may or may not both be possible and may or may not have meaningful consequences. But, assuming the NPC successfully disguises themselves, it would be on the DM to telegraph this in their description and on the players to declare an attempt to determine if the NPC is disguised, and that attempt likewise may or may not be able to succeed or fail and may or may not have meaningful consequences. Assuming that all of those things are possible, a check would be appropriate to resolve that action - probably Wisdom (Insight) or Wisdom (Perception), maybe Intelligence (Investigation), depending on the specifics of the action declaration. But whatever the case may be, success on that check would reveal to the player that the NPC is wearing a disguise, while failure would not reveal that fact and leave the players to decide what their characters think about the NPC’s identity.

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

The criteria which the DM uses to determine if a check is called for are the fictional positioning as established in their description of the environment and the player’s description of their character’s action, and the rules of the game. One of the rules of the game, as I understand them, is that players decide what their characters do. So, a DM who decides a check is called for when that action overrides that general rule does not have the support of the rules on doing so, unless there are more specific rules governing the resolution of that action (such as the rules for spellcasting) which contradict the general rule. If a character is improvising an action, there are no specific rules governing it, and the DM must either fall back on the general rules (which say the player decides what their character does), or make a call that is not supported by the rules.

The social interaction rules provide said more specific rules.

No, they don’t. Or if they do, I haven’t seen where. So far you have only cited the effects of a successful ability check, and as I’ve explained, ability checks are not actions but a part of the action resolution process; one that is never reached in order for the effects of success to be applied if the action being taken would prevent the player from deciding what their character does and the procedure of play is being followed as it’s laid out in the general 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.

There is no special pleading. Actions which would prevent the player from deciding what their character does do not have uncertain outcomes, unless the rules governing the resolution of that specific action make an exception to the general rule that the player decides what their character does. You seem to be generalizing all game mechanics as establishing uncertainty without considering the actual resolution procedures for the specific mechanics being invoked.