D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

It's true that I find some argumentation here exasperating,

Hey, we agree on something!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.”

YES! It definitely is way more specific that generic waffling about what roleplaying is!

 

[Bill Zebub]

. Some of us simply do not arbitrarily decide that some of the rules do not apply.

QFT!

 

[clearstream]

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.”

I did say that. I even cited each skill and bolded the text that I felt created sufficient specificity.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Skills are a source of bonuses on checks. Checks are a step in the general action resolution process that occurs after uncertainty has been established.

 

[Maxperson]

Only, the way I read it, it's not, since:

• The play loop only speaks about the environment, the players describing their actions, and the narration of the adventurers' actions.
• So it's only about the adventurer's actions, whereas the section that just follows says "In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions."
• This clearly means that there are situations where the DM takes his turn(s) choosing and resolving actions, which are obviously the ones of his NPCs/Monsters, since the example is about combat.
• Furthermore, the next sentence clarifies it even further: "But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure."
• Which, in turn means that it is less structured than combat (where it is sequenced by turns), but also clearly means that the DM also chooses his actions, and this is not what is described in the play loop, as this one is (as seen above) limited to the adventurers' actions.

That being said, I think I perfectly understand @Swarmkeeper's position, and I agree that it makes a lot of sense in common adventuring environment where the PCs "have the initiative", not in the combat sense, but in the sense of them deciding what to do and where to go, and it makes sense as a description for a beginning DM.

It's also extremely player-centric, which is both a good and a bad thing, a good thing because the PCs should really be the heroes of their own story, but to me also a bad thing because I like my adventuring worlds to be more alive with NPCs than them just being "the environment".

Which is why I defend the position that the DM is also very much an actor in the play, and for me it's clearly supported even by the description in the PH, which is obviously player-centric since it's the introduction to the PH.

Like I said earlier, I personally view it more your way and not the other way. I say "more," because I don't view it as absolute like you do.

I was thinking about it after my first post agreeing with you and I thought about environmental descriptions. I pictured myself saying something like, "As the group crests the hill, you guys can see far down into the valley. The valley is mostly grassland, but you do see trees scattered here and there. Within your field of vision you can make out 3 flocks of sheep and some shepherds keeping them safe. One shepherd with the second flock splits off to recapture an escaping animal."

Is that environment or not? In the description I've included people and what actions(outside of combat) those people are taking, which you say isn't environment, but it really seems like it could be environment to me. If it is environment, what makes people taking actions environment here, but not in combat?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Skills are a source of bonuses on checks. Checks are a step in the general action resolution process that occurs after uncertainty has been established.

Well…I think it’s fair game for the DM to factor skill proficiency (or expertise) into the decision of whether there is uncertainty. The character with Arcana and the character with Acrobatics might be granted automatic success in different situations.

 

[clearstream]

Skills are a source of bonuses on checks. Checks are a step in the general action resolution process that occurs after uncertainty has been established.

In your view, is it only social skills that are not actions? Or all skills?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I did say that. I even cited each skill and bolded the text that I felt created sufficient specificity.

Ah, ok. So it seems this debate has been resolved.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In your view, is it only social skills that are not actions? Or all skills?

Not their view, truth: skills are not declarable actions, any more than attributes and armor class are.