D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

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

I see a strong dependency on the social contract in play and the trust players are investing in their DM.

 

[iserith]

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.

Watch a lot of different ones as I do and you'll notice that many are not playing for an audience (particularly as they don't seem to have one to speak of). I don't even watch the popular ones because many of them more about performing than playing.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Yes, this. People keep claiming I’m arguing for some sort of “carve out” for social actions, but the relationship between social actions and actions which violate the player’s ability to decide what their character does is correlative, not causative. Lots of commonly used social actions are taken with the intent of getting the other party in the interaction to do or think something specific. Not all social actions do so, and not all actions that do so are social, but there is a strong correlation between the two.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.

Nobody is claiming the high ground. This argument is about what rulings the rules do or don’t support.

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.


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.

Ironic that you end this point in your list with quod erat demonstrandum because this is precisely the point in your argument where it fails from my perspective. You are treating all game mechanics as equal, without interrogating the actual resolution procedures for those specific mechanics. The spellcasting mechanics have a different, more specific resolution procedure than the general rules for resolving improvised actions. Ditto for the rules for certain class features and monster features.

 

[clearstream]

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.

You put it that we require the act to be uncertain prior to a check being called for. No act is uncertain if a check is not called for it. Any act for which a check is called, is uncertain.

Essentially you are adding a bar that is not printed in the rules to what a DM might decide. You're saying that to be working within the game rules a DM must justify their decision that a check is called for. What justifications are acceptable?

You say that to count as acceptable it must not impinge on the definition of roleplay. Supposing the definition of roleplay to amount to a rule of the game, ideally we can agree a DM doesn't justify calling for a check on something that breaks or ignores the rules of the game.

However, you end up claiming a sanctity to that which falls in the definition of roleplay that does not exist. For your test to work and be good, it must be the case that everything falling within the definition is always certain. That is not the case, as demonstrated by other game mechanics.

And that is sufficient. When a game mechanic calls for it, something that falls within the definition of roleplay can be uncertain. If it can be uncertain, a DM is justified by the rules in saying it is uncertain in this case.

If we want to avoid that, we can do so, but only by pleading a special case.

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.

This seems very confused. If the NPC successfully disguises themselves, why does the DM need to telegraph it? Or do you envision a check made in the open - NPC deception against PC insight (or I would allow other skills, like history, if the disguise is of a public figure) to potentially force the PCs to constrain their roleplay? (I say force where I know you might put guide, with the thought that if a successful deception check doesn't result in any change to player behaviour, the magic circle is broken at that point.)

 

[clearstream]

Watch a lot of different ones as I do and you'll notice that many are not playing for an audience (particularly as they don't seem to have one to speak of). I don't even watch the popular ones because many of them more about performing than playing.

They're choosing to stream themselves, which cannot be set aside. Our behaviours are the totality of our behaviours.

 

[clearstream]

Ironic that you end this point in your list with quod erat demonstrandum because this is precisely the point in your argument where it fails from my perspective. You are treating all game mechanics as equal, without interrogating the actual resolution procedures for those specific mechanics. The spellcasting mechanics have a different, more specific resolution procedure than the general rules for resolving improvised actions. Ditto for the rules for certain class features and monster features.

Ironically, too, you're missing what is demonstrated. Your claim relies on the impossibility of uncertainty in 'player decides'. The requirement you raise (accepting for the sake of argument its validity) rests on whether uncertainty can subsist in player decisions.

The question isn't one of - are all mechanics equal - that is beside the point. The question is - as to the question of free will within the paradigm of the game, can there be uncertainty? Once we know there can be, we can say that the game paradigm endorses a DM calling for a check.

 

[iserith]

They're choosing to stream themselves, which cannot be set aside. Our behaviours are the totality of our behaviours.

My experience watching a wide range of these streams says you're wrong here. A good many of them look like someone's average to below-average table game. You can also spectate other people's games who are not streaming and see the aforementioned things happen with some regularity. I highly recommend it. It provides a lot of insights into how people play and how their various approaches to things leads them into predictable trouble.

 

[clearstream]

My experience watching a wide range of these streams says you're wrong here. A good many of them look like someone's average to below-average table game. You can also spectate other people's games who are not streaming and see the aforementioned things happen with some regularity. I highly recommend it. It provides a lot of insights into how people play and how their various approaches to things leads them into predictable trouble.

I can see I have some assumptions here that might prove hasty, and that does sound like a good practice. I will try it out and revert down the line (if it comes up!)

 

[Charlaquin]

You put it that we require the act to be uncertain prior to a check being called for.

Yes, because that’s how the rules describe the procedure. The DM calls for a roll to resolve the action if the outcome is uncertain. Uncertainty in the outcome is a prerequisite for a check to be called for to resolve that uncertainty.

No act is uncertain if a check is not called for it. Any act for which a check is called, is uncertain.

A check should not be called for unless the outcome of the action is uncertain.

Essentially you are adding a bar that is not printed in the rules to what a DM might decide. You're saying that to be working within the game rules a DM must justify their decision that a check is called for. What justifications are acceptable?


You say that to count as acceptable it must not impinge on the definition of roleplay. Supposing the definition of roleplay to amount to a rule of the game, ideally we can agree a DM doesn't justify calling for a check on something that breaks or ignores the rules of the game.

However, you end up claiming a sanctity to that which falls in the definition of roleplay that does not exist. For your test to work and be good, it must be the case that everything falling within the definition is always certain. That is not the case, as demonstrated by other game mechanics.

Other game mechanics that are more specific and contradict the roleplaying rule, yes. The rules for ability checks are a part of the general action resolution procedure, not a specific exception to the procedure like the rules for spellcasting are.

And that is sufficient. When a game mechanic calls for it, something that falls within the definition of roleplay can be uncertain. If it can be uncertain, a DM is justified by the rules in saying it is uncertain in this case.

Yes, when a general rule is contradicted by a more specific rule, the more specific rule takes precedence. Again, ability checks are part of the general action resolution procedure, not an exception to it.

This seems very confused. If the NPC successfully disguises themselves, why does the DM need to telegraph it? Or do you envision a check made in the open - NPC deception against PC insight (or I would allow other skills, like history, if the disguise is of a public figure) to potentially force the PCs to constrain their roleplay? (I say force where I know you might put guide, with the thought that if a successful deception check doesn't result in any change to player behaviour, the magic circle is broken at that point.)

I mean, technically the DM doesn’t have to telegraph that the NPC is disguised, but i think it’s best practice for them to do so, because otherwise they’re obstructing gameplay. A disguise is to social interaction as a trap is to dungeon exploration. If you don’t telegraph it, the players have no way of knowing that it’s there to be interacted with, so they have no choice but to either blindly guess whether or not a trap or disguise is present, establish a standard operating procedure of looking for traps or disguises at all times, or blunder into the trap or fall for the character’s false identity.