D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

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

skills in general... we have both made a doezen examples... you just like going after strawmen...

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.

just like above... nobody (that I have seen) has argued against auto success and auto fail... so that has nothing to do with this.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

These sections are actually really good to read and ponder about your style of DMing, I think. They also help seeing a lot of the debates on these forums in a very different light, since we have very different styles and actually we often end up debating something that hinges more on different styles than on the actual rules being debated.

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.

For me the middle path is like all compromises, it certainly lacks the drawbacks of the approaches, but it also fails to deliver on the benefits. In this specific case, I would find it a bit disconcerting as a player if the DM sometimes decided to roll and sometimes not based apparently on a whim of his part. If there is a logic there, it has to be explained, otherwise the extreme approaches have at the very least the added advantage of consistency.

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

Indeed, but the thing is that this might not be apparent from a player's perspective when they happen, see below.

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.

And neither I have, still we have ardent defenders of player agency on these forums, and people explaining that they have walked away from tables because of that.

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

Not necessarily. If you look at the SAC, for example there is the example of suggestion in which you might not even know that it was a magical compulsion if you did not witness the caster actually casting the spell (it was a specialty of my halfling sorceress with subtle spell): "Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there. You and your companions might deduce that you were beguiled if evidence of the spell is found."

This is where a bit of player forbearance and "playing along as I trust the DM" is really important.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

Care to explain what? The answer to what? I no longer have any idea what I’m being asked.

 

[Charlaquin]

These sections are actually really good to read and ponder about your style of DMing, I think. They also help seeing a lot of the debates on these forums in a very different light, since we have very different styles and actually we often end up debating something that hinges more on different styles than on the actual rules being debated.

For sure. And, hey, it worked to sway my opinion of what the rules contain support for in this instance. Definitely a powerful set of tools.

For me the middle path is like all compromises, it certainly lacks the drawbacks of the approaches, but it also fails to deliver on the benefits. In this specific case, I would find it a bit disconcerting as a player if the DM sometimes decided to roll and sometimes not based apparently on a whim of his part. If there is a logic there, it has to be explained, otherwise the extreme approaches have at the very least the added advantage of consistency.

When I call for a roll, I tell the player the DC and any consequences for failure that their character could reasonably discern. So, that should satisfy the need for an explanation of why a roll was called for in any given instance.

Indeed, but the thing is that this might not be apparent from a player's perspective when they happen, see below.


And neither I have, still we have ardent defenders of player agency on these forums, and people explaining that they have walked away from tables because of that.


Not necessarily. If you look at the SAC, for example there is the example of suggestion in which you might not even know that it was a magical compulsion if you did not witness the caster actually casting the spell (it was a specialty of my halfling sorceress with subtle spell): "Some spells are so subtle that you might not know you were ever under their effects. A prime example of that sort of spell is suggestion. Assuming you failed to notice the spellcaster casting the spell, you might simply remember the caster saying, “The treasure you’re looking for isn’t here. Go look for it in the room at the top of the next tower.” You failed your saving throw, and off you went to the other tower, thinking it was your idea to go there. You and your companions might deduce that you were beguiled if evidence of the spell is found."

This is where a bit of player forbearance and "playing along as I trust the DM" is really important.

Ah, ok, I see what you mean. Yeah, I prefer not to keep such things secret out of character. If a PC is being affected by the suggestion spell or whatever, I would tell the player so, even if their character wouldn’t know it. I’m not concerned with “metagaming,” so to me there’s no advantage to not telling the player why their character is being forced to do something.

 

[clearstream]

Care to explain what? The answer to what? I no longer have any idea what I’m being asked.

I said

There's no need to settle that for the moment. As things stand, we're waiting on you to find a way to discount skills as game elements from being specific enough to form exceptions to general rules.

And you said

I did, back in the post you never responded to. Ability checks are part of the basic action resolution process, the most fundamental rule of the game after rule 0. All other rules are more specific.

I didn't see how that was an answer to the contention - that skills as game elements are an exception to PHB 185 and any general way the game might work. Unless as I asked up-thread, you want to moot that where we read skills in RAW, we should in fact read blank text?

 

[HammerMan]

For me the middle path is like all compromises, it certainly lacks the drawbacks of the approaches, but it also fails to deliver on the benefits. In this specific case, I would find it a bit disconcerting as a player if the DM sometimes decided to roll and sometimes not based apparently on a whim of his part. If there is a logic there, it has to be explained, otherwise the extreme approaches have at the very least the added advantage of consistency.

I am far from your average player of 5e, and my group is too (I doubt most groups all have and do DM each other in a rotation for years). We just find talking openly about it works. any can just ask "Why that DC?" or "COme on can't I just do it" or "What went into that choice" at any point...

 

[Charlaquin]

skills in general... we have both made a doezen examples... you just like going after strawmen...

What are you talking about? Like I said, the possibility of success and failure depend on the specifics of the action. You asked if a barmaid can succeed and fail to seduce someone, so I gave an example of a specific action where, based on a barmaid’s goal and approach and the details of the environment, success would not be possible. That’s not a strawman, it’s an illustrative example. We could also construct an illustrative example of a specific action where failure would not be possible, and one where both are possible. You have to take these things on a case-by-case basis.

just like above... nobody (that I have seen) has argued against auto success and auto fail... so that has nothing to do with this.

What I’m saying is, if an action is taken with the goal of making a PC think, feel, or do something, the player decides whether it succeeds or fails (in the absence of a more specific rule creating an exception to this process).

 

[Charlaquin]

I said

And you said


I didn't see how that was an answer to the contention - that skills as game elements are an exception to PHB 185 and any general way the game might work. Unless as I asked up-thread, you want to moot that where we read skills in RAW, we should in fact read blank text?

You’re not making any sense. My argument is that ability checks are part of the basic action resolution process. Why would I need to discount skills as game elements that can create exceptions to the general rules? I believe that they are game elements. Their function is to allow the DM to determine if a creature can add its proficiency bonus to an ability check. Nothing about that function is in contrast to the general rules for action resolution, so I don’t understand what relevance their ability to create exceptions to more general rules has.

 

[HammerMan]

What I’m saying is, if an action is taken with the goal of making a PC think, feel, or do something, the player decides whether it succeeds or fails (in the absence of a more specific rule creating an exception to this process).

and how does the player decide? where is that?
We have rules for sociol skills?
We have rules for "that works" and "That doesn't work"
We have rules for "That can work but wont for sure" it's called ability check and can add skills

 

[Charlaquin]

and how does the player decide?

However they want to.

where is that?
We have rules for sociol skills?
We have rules for "that works" and "That doesn't work"
We have rules for "That can work but wont for sure" it's called ability check and can add skills

Sure, if the player decides the DM should make an ability check to determine if the action succeeds at making them think, feel, or do the thing, that’s their prerogative.