D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

If the DM is acting in good faith, you'll also auto succeed a good amount of the time. Rolling for everything would cause you to fail more often.

That said, I know from experience (both in playing and observing games) that there are a lot of DMs out there where the default answer to most actions is "No" unless you roll the dice. So I can see where some people might figure rolling is better than not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If there is no threat, a DM might decide not to call for a check. Right?

In my post you were responding to, I was suggesting that no check should be needed at all. Since we're talking about a change in descriptive mental state...one that doesn't correlate to any change in game-state as described by the rules...then we don't need mechanics. That is, there is no "Intimidated" or "Persuaded" state that correlates to having been intimidated or persuaded, so mechanics don't play a role.

So your response doesn't make any sense to me here. There is a threat, and it's up to the player (in their role as the character) to determine how seriously they take it. I think that models the fiction we are trying to convey better than rolling dice and pretending to be threatened.

Generally though, to my reading everyone is okay with there being game mechanics that do decide what a player character thinks, says, or does.

Check. (Although I'll add that if these are too common or too onerous, I would probably tire of the game.)

All or almost all are okay with PC ability checks deciding what NPCs think, say or do.

So, that's not exactly right. Or, at least, it puts a misleading spin on it. I would say that I (and probably others) are ok with the DM deciding whether (and how) what an NPC thinks, says, or does is influenced by PC actions. Plus that's what the rules say: the DM can simply decide. If the DM decides that a PCs attempt to influence an NPC might work, but might not, and the DM wants to resolve that uncertainty by asking for a PC ability check, that's ok, too. But that's the DM's choice; he/she can also just choose the outcome.

Many though are not okay with NPC ability checks deciding what a PC thinks, says, or does.

Right. Many of us think players should have at least as much say over their PCs as the DM has over their NPCs: that is, both should decide if attempts to influence their characters are successful, and if so, how. (If an individual player wants to let the dice decide for them, they should also have that right.)

And analysis of RAW diverges on that score.

Clearly!

I think the social skills are deception, intimidation, persuasion, possibly performance, and by implication insight. Deception seems to get a pass for NPCs to use it, because it can be looked at as not changing what a character thinks. I don't share that view, but perhaps it doesn't matter. Insight also gets a pass. I think it likely that many cases involving performance by an NPC will also get a pass

So here is where I think you are starting to conflate "attempts to influence characters (PC or NPC)" with specific skills. I'm concerned with all attempts to influence decision-making, which meet these two criteria:
1. Have the goal of causing (or preventing) certain action declarations by a target character
2. Without using abilities that have specific mechanics achieving the desired effect (e.g. a charm person spell)

Now, some action declarations that meet those criteria may be described using a word that matches a skill: e.g., "I try to intimidate the captive" seems to align with the "Intimidation" skill. Some of them don't have an obvious associated skill: e.g. "I try to seduce the princess". And some action declarations sound like a specific skill, but may actually be a better fit with a different skill: "I try to deceive the guard by handing him the key, but I really pocket the key and hand him a different one." And, finally, even when the correlation to a skill is obvious, the acting character may not actually have proficiency in that skill, but it still gets resolved the same way.

The point of all of those examples is that I think it's a mistake...it's a distraction...to put any focus on the skills themselves. Again, we are just talking about resolving action declarations which:
1) Are meant to influence another character's decision-making...
2) ...in the absence of an ability that has a specific mechanic for doing so

So we are concerned only about intimidation and persuasion.

And that's why you lost me there. Because we're not concerned only about intimidation and persuasion. Or we shouldn't be. Or, at least, I'm not. I'm concerned about any attempts at influence that don't rely on a clearly defined mechanic.

So for the rest of this, I'll pretend we're talking about all those cases.

There are I think valid concerns about the balance of permitting them to be used to override what characters think. Here I intentionally say characters because - thinking of @Lanefan - the power they might confer NPCs is a mirror of the power they might confer to PCs.

Thus, likewise, the power to adjudicate those attempts should be a mirror. That is, the "owner" of the target character should have absolute authority to determine the outcome. If they aren't sure what the outcome should be, they are free to rely on whatever resolution they like.

In fact, I would say that power risks far less disruption in the hands of an NPC! In play, I have seen the social interaction structure in the DMG prove very poorly balanced, so I have a strong sympathy with concerns around the balance of these skills.

Honestly not even sure what you're saying here. I think what you are saying is that it's fine for the DM to have absolute executive fiat over attempts to influence their NPCs, but it's problematic for players to have the same authority over their characters. If so, I disagree. And maybe we're stuck there, because good luck proving it either way.

Further efforts to settle the legal arguments are likely fruitless unless someone introduces new thinking. Therefore I want to focus more on what happens if - for the sake of argument - intimidation and persuasion were something NPCs can use. That has speedily turned up worthwhile considerations.

NPCs can use intimidation and persuasion. And deception. And seduction. And flattery. And ridicule.

It's even possible that the player of their target may, in resolving the outcome, ask for the DM to make an attribute roll to help them decide. And they may further grant a proficiency bonus for certain skills. And it's even possible, although not guaranteed, that the name of that skill will be a word that sounds a lot like a word that was used in the original action declaration.

But nobody, neither PC nor NPC, can "use the Persuasion skill". That's just not how it works.

 

[Bill Zebub]

After writing that whole essay, I realize I probably need to ask:

Is there anybody here who thinks "Character A tries to seduce Character B" is resolved differently than "Character A tries to intimidate Character B"? If so, is it because there is an Intimidate skill, but not a Seduce skill? Does it change if either/both A and B are PCs or NPCs?

 

[Charlaquin]

That said, I know from experience (both in playing and observing games) that there are a lot of DMs out there where the default answer to most actions is "No" unless you roll the dice. So I can see where some people might figure rolling is better than not.

Yeah, I think this is a significant part of where the desire to roll comes from.

 

[Maxperson]

After writing that whole essay, I realize I probably need to ask:

Is there anybody here who thinks "Character A tries to seduce Character B" is resolved differently than "Character A tries to intimidate Character B"? If so, is it because there is an Intimidate skill, but not a Seduce skill? Does it change if either/both A and B are PCs or NPCs?

They wouldn't resolve differently as both are just ability checks, but I can see seduction using wisdom or intelligence and not charisma, depending on the type of seduction. And no it doesn't change depending on who is a PC or NPC, except for who makes the decision on success or failure.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok, now I'm on a roll. (GET IT!?!?!). I'm particularly curious how @clearstream, @HammerMan, and @Ovinomancer respond to the following, but of course I'm interested in all reactions.

Upthread, @Charlaquin got a lot of pushback for saying that "there's no uncertainty" when an NPC tries to influence a PC. Let's unpack that.

First, I think we're all agreeing that the underlying assumption is that the play loop is symmetric. That is, we resolve these action declarations ("Fred tries to intimidate Ginger") the same way, regardless whether it's PC -> NPC or NPC -> PC.

One reason for that that is that there is no separate set of rules, or a separate play loop, described for NPC -> PC. All we have to go on is the assumption that the same rules apply. It's all we got.

Ok, so the first step in that play loop is to determine whether the described action is an automatic success or an automatic failure. If it's neither of those we move on to resolution using attributes and, perhaps, skills.

So who determines, in an NPC -> PC action declaration, whether it's an automatic success or an automatic failure?

There are three possibilities:
a) The player decides
b) The DM decides
c) We skip this step if it's NPC -> PC

In reverse order:

If we skip this step, then we are using a play loop that is not the same as the one described in the books. But our whole premise for getting here is that we use the same play loop for NPC -> PC that we use for PC -> NPC. There's just no way to read the published text and conclude that RAI or RAW is that only part of the play loop applies when it's NPC -> PC.

So the answer can't be that we skip this step. Somebody needs to determine if it was an automatic success or automatic failure.

If it's the DM, it means that the DM has authority to just declare that the PC is persuaded, or intimidated, or seduced, or whatever. And is there anybody actually advocating for DMs (in D&D 5e) to have that authority? If so, then we are definitely never going to resolve this dispute, so we can stop right there.

But I think most of the participants in this thread will agree that's crazy. The DM can't...or shouldn't...just say, "The goblin flexes his muscles, and you find that intimidating and hand over all your gold." That's just simply beyond any reasonable description of DM authority.

So the person deciding if it's an auto success (or failure) can't be the DM.

That leaves only the player to decide. If it's true that the standard play loop applies to NPC -> PC action declarations, then it must also be true that the player is the one who determines whether it succeeds or fails automatically, before moving on to calling for a dice roll.

Once the player has made that determination, we (maybe) move on to a dice roll. So now the question of who decides which skill/attribute to use, what the DC is, and what the actual outcome is, including if the player must abide by the result, and how.

But all of that is irrelevant because the player had the power to keep us from even getting to this step. If they want to let the dice decide for them, fine. My opinion is that the player should also set the DC, pick the skill, and interpret the result, but if somebody else thinks the DM should do it that's fine, too: as long as the player has the authority to declare the attempt an automatic failure (or success!), then in the cases where they don't take that opportunity I don't really care how the rest of it gets resolved.

(edited for persuasiveness)

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oh, and one more thing...

I don't think the above necessarily applies only to charisma skills, or even only to attempts at social manipulation. At least not by definition. It applies to any action declaration by an NPC that:
1) Somehow affects a PC
2) Isn't covered by a more a specific rule

So if an NPC wants to compose a sonnet, no PC is affected and this doesn't apply

If the NPC wants to shove a PC into a ditch, there are specific rules for that and this doesn't apply

If an NPC wants to jump over a ditch, no PC is affected and there's a specific rule

I think that the result in practice is that we're only talking about social manipulation/influence (a.k.a. 'roleplaying'), but as an outcome not a premise. No "special pleading" involved.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok, now I'm on a roll. I'm particularly curious how @clearstream, @HammerMan, and @Ovinomancer respond to the following, but of course I'm interested in all reactions.

Upthread, @Charlaquin got a lot of pushback for saying that "there's no uncertainty" when an NPC tries to influence a PC. Let's unpack that.

First, I think we're all agreeing that the underlying assumption is that the play loop is symmetric. That is, we resolve these action declarations ("Fred tries to intimidate Ginger") the same way, regardless whether it's PC -> NPC or NPC -> PC.

One reason for that that is that there is no separate set of rules, or a separate play loop, described for NPC -> PC. All we have to go on is the assumption that the same rules apply. It's all we got.

Ok, so the first step in that play loop is to determine whether the described action is an automatic success or an automatic failure. If it's neither of those we move on to resolution using attributes and, perhaps, skills.

So who determines, in an NPC -> PC action declaration, whether it's an automatic success or an automatic failure?

There are three possibilities:
a) The DM decides
b) The player decides
c) We skip this step if it's NPC -> PC

If it's the DM, it means that the DM has authority to just declare that the PC is persuaded, or intimidated, or seduced, or whatever. And is there anybody actually advocating for DMs (in D&D 5e) to have that authority? If so, then we are definitely never going to resolve this dispute, so we can stop right there.

But I think most of the participants in this thread will agree that's crazy. The DM can't...or shouldn't...just say, "The goblin flexes his muscles, and you find that intimidating and hand over all your gold." That's just simply beyond any reasonable description of DM authority.

So the person deciding if it's an auto success (or failure) can't be the DM.

That leaves two possibilities: either we skip this step when it's NPC -> PC, or the player decides

If we skip this step, then we are using a play loop that is not the same as the one described in the books. But our whole premise for getting here is that we use the same play loop for NPC -> PC that we use for PC -> NPC. There's just no way to read the published text and conclude that RAI or RAW is that only part of the play loop applies when it's NPC -> PC. So the answer can't be that we skip this step.

That leaves only the player to decide. If it's true that the standard play loop applies to NPC -> PC action declarations, then it must also be true that the player is the one who determines whether it succeeds or fails automatically, before moving on to calling for a dice roll.

Once the player has made that determination, we (maybe) move on to a dice roll. So now the question of who decides which skill/attribute to use, what the DC is, and what the actual outcome is, including if the player must abide by the result, and how.

But all of that is irrelevant because the player had the power to keep us from even getting to this step. If they want to let the dice decide for them, fine. My opinion is that the player should also set the DC, pick the skill, and interpret the result, but if somebody else thinks the DM should do that's fine: as long as the player has the authority to declare the attempt an automatic failure (or success!), then in the cases where they don't take that opportunity I don't really care how the rest of it gets resolved.

It’s an interesting line of reasoning, and it does make the NPC -> PC procedure symmetrical to the PC -> NPC procedure, which might be aesthetically pleasing. But, I don’t think it’s what the rules as written actually suggest doing. There’s nowhere that I’m aware of where the rules say a (non-DM) player ought to determine if an action can succeed, fail, and has consequences. The player does, as I understand it, decide what their character thinks, feels, and does, and basically nothing else. So, while I think this is a great way to run it, and basically how I handle it when it’s PC -> PC, I don’t actually think it’s supported by the rules.

I think where our analysis differ is in how we understand the process by which the DM determines whether an action succeeds, fails, or requires a roll. In this construction, you seem to suggest that the DM can simply make that decision arbitrarily, and use the fact that the DM being able to arbitrarily decide that an action meant to force a PC to take a specific action would be obviously unfair. But, rather than this indicating the player ought to make the decision, I would argue that this indicates the decision is not meant to be arbitrary. The DM is meant to determine, not decide, whether the action succeeds, fails, or requires a roll to be resolved, and while making that determination necessarily requires the DM to use their own judgment, the rules provide guidance on how the DM ought to make the determination. That element of personal judgment is why I prefer to say a given ruling on an action resolution is supported or not supported rather than allowed or not allowed. Technically, the rules don’t say a DM can’t just say “the goblin intimidates you. He succeeds without needing to make a check and you hand over all your gold”, but doing so would be contrary to the guidance the rules offer on how to determine the outcome of an action, so the DM would not be well-supported in making that call.

So, how do the rules say the DM should make the determination? Well, the guidance for this is kind of scattered throughout the PHB and the DMG, which is why I say this understanding kind of needs to be arrived at from a thorough and holistic reading of all of the rules. But, I think most if not all of us are in agreement that the rules at least suggest ruling automatic failure if success would not reasonably be possible and automatic success if failure would not be possible. As well, the DMG presents a few heuristics for when a DM might call for a check to determine whether an action succeeds or fails - rolling with it, ignoring the dice, or balancing between the two, with the existence of a cost or consequence for failure suggested as a determining factor, and with no progress and progress combined with a setback both suggested as possible outcomes of failure. Rolling with it and ignoring the dice are called out as having drawbacks, while balancing between the two is not. There are also lots of rules regarding the resolution of specific actions, such as spells.

To bring this back to the topic of actions meant to force a PC to make a specific decision, I think the “roleplaying rule” provides us with guidance on how the DM ought to determine success or failure in this situation - the player decides what their character thinks, feels, and does, so in the absence of more specific rules governing the resolution of a particular action, the DM is advised to let the player decide whether an action that would cause their character to think, feel, or do something succeeds, fails, or requires a roll. And note that something happening to a character (such as getting knocked prone) is not the same thing as that character doing something. Likewise, the character gaining knowledge (such as knowledge that they’re being lied to) is not the same as the character thinking something.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It’s an interesting line of reasoning, and it does make the NPC -> PC procedure symmetrical to the PC -> NPC procedure, which might be aesthetically pleasing. But, I don’t think it’s what the rules as written actually suggest doing. There’s nowhere that I’m aware of where the rules say a (non-DM) player ought to determine if an action can succeed, fail, and has consequences. The player does, as I understand it, decide what their character thinks, feels, and does, and basically nothing else. So, while I think this is a great way to run it, and basically how I handle it when it’s PC -> PC, I don’t actually think it’s supported by the rules.

I think where our analysis differ is in how we understand the process by which the DM determines whether an action succeeds, fails, or requires a roll. In this construction, you seem to suggest that the DM can simply make that decision arbitrarily, and use the fact that the DM being able to arbitrarily decide that an action meant to force a PC to take a specific action would be obviously unfair. But, rather than this indicating the player ought to make the decision, I would argue that this indicates the decision not meant to be arbitrary. The DM is meant to determine, not decide, whether the action succeeds, fails, or requires a roll to be resolved, and while making that determination necessarily requires the DM to use their own judgment, the rules provide guidance on how the DM ought to make the determination. That element of personal judgment is why I prefer to say a given ruling on an action resolution is supported or not supported rather than allowed or not allowed. Technically, the rules don’t say a DM can’t just say “the goblin intimidates you. He succeeds without needing to make a check and you hand over all your gold”, but doing so would be contrary to the guidance the rules offer on how to determine the outcome of an action, so the DM would not be well-supported in making that call.

So, how do the rules say the DM should make the determination? Well, the guidance for this is kind of scattered throughout the PHB and the DMG, which is why I say this understanding kind of needs to be arrived at from a thorough and holistic reading of all of the rules. But, I think most if not all of us are in agreement that the rules at least suggest ruling automatic failure if success would not reasonably be possible and automatic success if failure would not be possible. As well, the DMG presents a few heuristics for when a DM might call for a check to determine whether an action succeeds or fails - rolling with it, ignoring the dice, or balancing between the two, with the existence of a cost or consequence for failure suggested as a determining factor, no progress and progress combined with a setback both suggested as possible outcomes of failure. Rolling with it and ignoring the dice are called out as having drawbacks, while balancing between the two is not.

To bring this back to the topic of actions meant to force a PC to make a specific decision, I think the “roleplaying rule” provides us with guidance on how the DM ought to determine success or failure in this situation - the player decides what their character thinks, feels, and does, so if the action would cause the character to think, feel, or do something specific (and there aren’t other, more specific rules governing the action’s resolution process) then the DM is advised to let the player decide.

Yes, I agree with this, too.

My line of reasoning was really meant to show that the symmetry argument cannot logically lead (in the kinds of scenarios we've been discussing) to players being required to abide by NPC dice rolls.

Both approaches lead to the same conclusion.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, I agree with this, too.

My line of reasoning was really meant to show that the symmetry argument cannot logically lead (in the kinds of scenarios we've been discussing) to players being required to abide by NPC dice rolls.

Both approaches lead to the same conclusion.

And, it’s worth noting, @Ovinomancer ’s approach where the rule that a player always makes the decisions for their character is treated as part of the social contract rather than assumed to be a rule of the game, also leads to the same conclusion. I think most of us actually agree on what is the best gameplay process to follow, we’ve just been arguing for 69 pages (nice) about what line of reasoning is the right one to follow to get there. It’s quite silly.