D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

Why? I don’t believe skills are not game elements. They are. Their function is to allow the DM to determine if a creature should add its proficiency bonus to an ability check being made to resolve an action it’s taking. Possibly with the help of the creature’s player, if the creature is a PC.

I expect you are familiar with the rules on PHB 7 listing the types of things that can be specifics that beat generals. And stating very clearly that such things can create an exception to how the rest of the game works. Therefore can you expand on your line of thought?

 

[HammerMan]

It depends on the specifics of the action. What is happening in the environment? What is the creature’s goal? What is the creature doing to try and achieve its goal? If the orc’ goal is to make the grass grow by shouting at it, it doesn’t matter how intimidating it is, it can’t succeed.

agreed.

If the barmaid’s goal is to score a night with a hot customer and her approach is by giving him a sultry look and slipping him her room key, but he isn’t sexually attracted to women, it doesn’t matter how seductive she is, she can’t succeed.

yup... and again, can fail, can succeed, may need to roll.

And if the king’s goal is to get the PC adventurers to accept a quest and his approach is by offering them a reward, and the players decide their characters don’t want to do the quest, it doesn’t matter how persuasive the king is, he can’t succeed.

wait he can't succeed... he can't possible get them to agree? That can't be what you are saying here, I have to be miss

Yes, if they can fail and can succeed, I agree that an ability check (potentially with proficiency bonus added for a relevant skill) is the way the rules support determining which of those outcomes occur. But you can’t just gloss over that if. Not all approaches can succeed and fail at all goals.

correct, I have already accounted for auto fail auto succeeds, so has everyone else in this thread.

 

[clearstream]

Betrothed.

Betroved - the goblin king is now part of her store of delightful or valuable things.

 

[HammerMan]

Just pointing out that, actually, he is well supported: "With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors."

Note in particular the use of the words "decides" and not "determines", although that is used in the previous sentence "determine success or failure as they like in other situations.". I know, it's only one of the two extreme approaches outlined in "the Role of Dice", but it shows that there is actually support for the DM just deciding whatever he wants without rolling the dice or actually even without mechanics. Once more, the rules are very open.

yes and that is a valid reading of the rules.

By the way, the "Ignoring the dice" is very much the way we play at our tables. This is not to say that we ignore the mechanics, but there is a lot of auto-success/failure based on descriptions of actions, and that for both the PCs and the NPCs (and their respective stats).

As for the "hand over all your gold", it's another matter entirely, it's not about the resolution mechanic, it's about what players find acceptable in terms of game situations. And yes, although it was a long time ago, some of us have been raised on dungeons where this happened now and then to characters and their magic items because of simple pipes or pools in rooms...

I have to say, I respect that I even used to play that way. (I mean back in 2e you HAD to, we didn't have social Non Weapon Profs)

 

[Charlaquin]

Just pointing out that, actually, he is well supported: "With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors."

Note in particular the use of the words "decides" and not "determines", although that is used in the previous sentence "determine success or failure as they like in other situations.". I know, it's only one of the two extreme approaches outlined in "the Role of Dice", but it shows that there is actually support for the DM just deciding whatever he wants without rolling the dice or actually even without mechanics. Once more, the rules are very open.

By the way, the "Ignoring the dice" is very much the way we play at our tables. This is not to say that we ignore the mechanics, but there is a lot of auto-success/failure based on descriptions of actions, and that for both the PCs and the NPCs (and their respective stats).

As for the "hand over all your gold", it's another matter entirely, it's not about the resolution mechanic, it's about what players find acceptable in terms of game situations. And yes, although it was a long time ago, some of us have been raised on dungeons where this happened now and then to characters and their magic items because of simple pipes or pools in rooms...



This is bit of a biased reading, both approaches do not have only drawbacks, they have advantages first and foremost, especially ignoring the dice, since the advantage is "This approach rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation you’ve described for an answer, rather than looking to their character sheet or their character’s special abilities." which I consider a very good thing, compared to a disadvantage of " A DM might come to favor certain players or approaches, or even work against good ideas if they send the game in a direction he or she doesn’t like. This approach can also slow the game if the DM focuses on one “correct” action that the characters must describe to overcome an obstacle." because that is circumstantial and good DMs can usually avoid that trap (it's not something that we've had a problem with, actually).

That’s a very good point, rolling with it and ignoring the dice are indeed both supported by the rules, and do have advantages as well as drawbacks. So, I’ll concede that the DM who simply decides the goblin automatically succeeds at intimidating the players into giving him their gold doesn’t entirely lack support in doing so, and likewise the DM who puts it to a roll doesn’t entirely lack support in doing so either. I still think the Role of the Dice section is presenting the middle path as having the benefits of both methods and the drawback of neither, but nonetheless it does seem to be offering support for all three approaches. A tip of the hat to you for making that case quite well.

While I agree in general, I would also like to insist on the fact that sometimes it's normal for players to be forced into doing something, because it's magical,

Sure, and those things generally have specific rules for how they work, which make them exceptions to the general action resolution process.

although - usually for scenario reasons, it might not be obvious at that point. Encounters with Aboleth of Elder Brains or dominating vampires can certainly go that way, and players slamming the door for "losing their player agency" are absolutely welcome not to come back at our tables ever. I think lots of players (at least on these forums) have become way too oversensitive about what is, in the end, only a game.

That’s not something I have personally experienced. People I’ve played with are generally comfortable that sometimes specific effects such as magic can indeed force their characters to do things they might not want to do. As long as it’s not crossing any meta-game boundaries (which should be hashed out before the start of play, most likely in session 0), I haven’t seen it cause issues at the table.

So, when in doubt, in a magical world, you might just want to assume that it was magic rather than a misguided use of an ability score. You trust your DM, right ?

I think this should be clear from the DM’s description of the action, no?

 

[HammerMan]

We've also seen what player characters know explained something like this. A player character who fails an insight check against an NPC's deception doesn't know that they are lying. The idea is that a DM can't tell the player what their character thinks, so cannot say that they think the NPC is telling the truth. This becomes difficult to unpack in the case of a disguise, where a player character must in some sense be thinking that apparent-Lord Frogmouth is actual-Lord Frogmouth. It's hard to see how they can simply lack possession of any facts to the contrary because they surely posses some collection of facts that says apparent-Frogmouth is not anyone else but actual-Frogmouth. I'd love someone to explain to me how identity can be asserted without appeal to anything the player character must think?

Still, it seems to me that there should be something we could insert here that supplements the general rule (just as perhaps limits supplies the general rule with the formal carve out.) Any thought what that could be?

first I love your "You as player determines how your character thinks, acts, and talks, within limits."

this is a hard one, it is at it's core the argument of what is and is not metagaming. (and if you believe in metagaming)

I have an NPC that 1 PC knows is really a drow useing a hat of disguise to pretend to be a human. We don't keep secrets OUT of game at our table (and no rule says you have to) so all the players know, even though only 1 character does. Now if you notice a lie you can try to figure out what someone without your mindset and information can think, or you can make a roll...

 

[Charlaquin]

I expect you are familiar with the rules on PHB 7 listing the types of things that can be specifics that beat generals. And stating very clearly that such things can create an exception to how the rest of the game works.

Yes, I am.

Therefore can you expand on your line of thought?

You may have to be more specific with your question, because from my perspective bringing up the fact that specific rules can create exceptions to how the rest of the game works seems like a complete non-sequitur to my reading of skills as a game mechanic that functions to allow the DM to determine (possibly with the help of the player) whether a creature can add its proficiency bonus to an ability check.

 

[Charlaquin]

yup... and again, can fail, can succeed, may need to roll.

No, she can’t succeed; in my example, I specifically noted that the customer isn’t sexually attracted to women.

wait he can't succeed... he can't possible get them to agree? That can't be what you are saying here, I have to be miss

The players decide what their characters think, feel, and do. So, if they decide they don’t agree, then no, he can’t get them to agree.

 

[clearstream]

You may have to be more specific with your question, because from my perspective the fact that specific rules can create exceptions to how the rest of the game works seems like a complete non-sequitur to my reading of skills as a game mechanic that functions to allow the DM to determine (possibly with the help of the player) whether a creature can add its proficiency bonus to an ability check.

I'm not sure what you are angling for. Care to explain? How do you aim to cash out the answer to that?

 

[HammerMan]

Betroved - the goblin king is now part of her store of delightful or valuable things.

my Grammarly said it was a V, I don't know why... it also wont change Intimadate to intimidate when on my phone but will from my laptop...