D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

Except where overridden by a more specific rule you mean

And, like I said before, it may simply come down to disagreement of which “rules” are more specific than others.

 

[clearstream]

Except where overridden by a more specific rule you mean

Asked and answered.

 

[Hriston]

I'm neither following the distinction you are trying to make here, nor how that applies to the aforementioned Parley/Persuade (vs. PC) move, nor how it's problematic that such a result would be binding.

Without having any knowledge or experience of PbtA games myself, I assume that an effort to "press or entice" a PC has the goal of influencing that character such that they do what the character making such effort wants them to do. A binding successful result on a check to test such an effort would have the PC compelled to submit to the will of the other character, which is problematic if we hold that a PC's actions are governed by its player.

If, on the other hand, an effort is made to discover what it would take to persuade the PC, then I think a Wisdom (Insight) check might be appropriate to resolve that effort.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is a new line of argument. You now say that the reason is because ability checks are not actions, right? Is rolling the dice ever an action, in your view?

No, this is not “the reason”. They are just correcting your use of terms.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a new line of argument.

It is not a new line of argument, it’s a framing of the exact same argument I’ve been making that you’ve finally accepted on its own terms instead of trying to re-frame.

You now say that the reason is because ability checks are not actions, right? Is rolling the dice ever an action, in your view?

No. The dice are a tool for resolving the outcomes of actions. Actions are things characters do. Rolling dice is something players and DMs do.

 

[clearstream]

You know exactly the reason, so this is a pretty snarky way of expressing it.

It's true that I find some argumentation here exasperating, and so wrote snappily. I meant to refer to but not recite the claims up to now.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Except where overridden by a more specific rule you mean

Yes. Such as rules governing social skills. Which you completely arbitrarily decide to not qualify.

 

[Lyxen]

A roll is made only if there is uncertainty. You are relying on the assumption of a roll being made to establish uncertainty. That is circular.

Let's try it another way then, an NPC tries to deceive a PC, and as the DM you don't know how well he will perform in his deception, so the result is clearly uncertain.

Depending on that performance, different information will be provided to the player, so that despite the player being 100% in control of his PC, the result is still clearly uncertain. Therefore a roll is required because it's an ability check with an uncertain result.

That’s not really relevant for the purposes of establishing the possibility of success and failure, which is the uncertainty we care about in the general action resolution process.

See above.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Players decide what their characters think, say, or act, except where overridden by game mechanics.

Elves are immune to sleep. Is this overridden by the game mechanics of the sleep spell?

No, you know it’s not. You know that specific overrides general. I wish you would address this in your responses, rather than pretending it doesn’t exist.

FFS, all you have to say is that you think the task resolution loop is more specific than the text on page 185, and we can all say, “Ahhh….that’s where we disagree.”

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Funny that you don't even reference the passage on 185, which is the root of all of this.

If you start trying to prove basic geometry theorems (about parallel lines, sum of angles in a triangle, etc.) it will also become circular. You need a starting point, a basic axiom that you assume but can not prove.

The "PC's make their own decisions" theorem is built upon the text of page 185*. If you ignore it, you're going to have a hard time reconstructing the proof.

But I think you know that.

*Which, admittedly, reinforces my own deeply held beliefs.

Because it doesn't matter. We all agree that player controlling their character happens within the confines set by the rules. Some of us simply do not arbitrarily decide that some of the rules do not apply.