D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Crimson Longinus]

How I usually run is that social skills generally don't work on PCs and certainly not in the same way than on NPCs. Though deception can work in a sense that if the NPC beats the PCs insight, I inform the player that they do not detect any signs of lying and the NPC seems sincere. But of course the PC knows that some people simply are good liars, and can decide to not trust the NPC nevertheless.

Now I could see intimidation and persuasion working on PCs so that they would place some sort of brief debuff. The NPC successfully intimidates the PC "Don't do X or horrible things will happen to you" so the PC has an disadvantage to do X. This I feel is far better than the result just being "you can't do X." That being said, I probably wouldn't do this. Perhaps if the NPC was somehow legendarily intimidating/persuasive/etc. But usually such creatures already have some special power to represent that.

Most of the time I just try to take the NPCs social skills into account when I portray them. NPCs with good persuasion are portrayed in a manner that they come across convincing, intimidating NPCs are portrayed as scary etc.

 

[HammerMan]

You can do that, but it's not supported by the rules.

sure is, right in the monster manwe have stats and skills

So I don't do that in addition to finding it to be unnecessary since the player decides based on my description how they want the character to act.

yuo good on you just don't pretend it is written in stone somewhere

The burden of proof that the rules support playing this way is on you for that assertion. I showed the rules that underwrite my assertions. Outside of "play however you want," which is true.

I have provided it, you just don't like it

If you're running a game where some amount of rolls are made simply for color, it's harder for the players to decide where and when to spend resources that may affect the roll.

and again I ask what resource (someone said inspiration) so show me how to use it to effect the orcs roll.

You say they can just ask, but in a game like mine, you don't have to - all rolls are consequential. That strikes me as both supported by the rules and simply easier at the table.

and asking seems supported by the rules too

As well, why would I want to be advising players on how to spend their resources?

um cause you are friends playing a fun game?

That's a meaningful decision for them to make on their own (or along with their fellow players).

yup and the DM is a player too...

I'm there to describe the environment and narrate the result of the adventurers' actions, sometimes calling for rolls to resolve uncertainty when there's a meaningful consequence for failure. I'm not there to tell them how to play their characters.

an no one suggested you "tell them how to play their character"

 

[Lyxen]

How I usually run is that social skills generally don't work on PCs and certainly not in the same way than on NPCs. Though deception can work in a sense that if the NPC beats the PCs insight, I inform the player that they do not detect any signs of lying and the NPC seems sincere. But of course the PC knows that some people simply are good liars, and can decide to not trust the NPC nevertheless.

I agree with this, but for me nothing prevents it from being reciprocal with NPCs not detecting the lie of a deceiving PC but still being mistrustful.

In general, I play my NPCs exactly like the players play their PC, with exactly the same effects and limitations on social skills, in the end there's not difference apart from the fact that, when I create and play my NPCs, they are not all heroes with heroic determination (I mean, in general, nothing prevents a player from creating a PC that does not match this trope, but this is D&D and PCs are expected to be heroes at some level or other).

For example, intimidation, I will tell a player that his PC feels the NPC as very intimidating, but will let him decide how to roleplay it. And the other way around, I will take into account when roleplaying the NPC that the PC is very intimidating, but there might be other roleplaying or story elements involved, and it does not mean that the NPC will automatically cave in, or that he will spill the beans on absolutely everything.

As mentioned above, the main difference is that I am creating the adventure to be entertaining and fun for the players, and it would not be fun if their social skills meant nothing all the of time. So, most of the time, the NPC will have been created with a personality that allows a logical use of social skills. But there will also be logical exceptions for example you might be proficient in intimidation, have 20 charisma and roll a 20, the Evil God Emperor will recognise that you are intimidating, but that does not mean that he will surrender immediately,

Most of the time I just try to take the NPCs social skills into account when I portray them. NPCs with good persuasion are portrayed in a manner that they come across convincing, intimidating NPCs are portrayed as scary etc.

I will of course do that, but I will add the weight of the social skill, telling the player (again, as part of my DM's job of describing what is happening in the world) that he feels the NPC to be particularly truthful, intimidating, persuasive, etc. It does not mean that the player has to comply, but most players will take the hint and integrate that in their roleplay.

 

[HammerMan]

Nothing in the How to Play rules suggests that the DM’s description of the environment ought to be based on any particular numbers.

so we have gotten to the point where the argument is that the Cha, and the prof in Intimadate mean nothing and are not rules at all?

Obviously different people can read the same rules and arrive at different interpretations.

ding ding ding... I wish people would say this more and "it's not allowed/written in the rules" less

Of course “no one reads the DMG” is a running joke in the community, and I’ve found a lot of the ways people interpret the rules to be based at least as much on the methods they’ve found to be successful running previous editions of the game as it is on the words printed in the 5e rule books, if not more so. Which is valid, but not the way I prefer to run 5e.

cool... you do you

Nothing. You said you don’t use inspiration because your players forget to use it, I explained that players remembering to use Inspiration is one of the advantages of my approach to calling for rolls. It’s a tangent that happened to arise organically during the conversation.

except again how is insperation effecting the orc roll one way or other?

Sure, you could do that. I haven’t found it necessary because with my approach to calling for rolls, the players always know a check will have meaningful consequences for failure, and I tell them any such consequences their character could reasonably discern. But if you prefer to call for checks to establish descriptive details sometimes and don’t like to tell the players the potential consequences for failure before they roll, this might be a useful way to insure they can predict when a roll is consequential enough to spend resources like inspiration on and when it isn’t.

I also let my players call for rolls too, even with each other (Oh god the humanity)
I play with 7 people over 3 campaigns (2 weekly 1 monthly) of the 8 of us (me+7) 6 of us DM regularly, and the other two have DMed not just past editions but 5e, so we don't have alot of "That is for the DM to decide" we have much more friendly fun

 

[HammerMan]

It means that you get to say, "The massive orc rushes towards you frothing at the mouth and swinging his axe wildly in an intimidating manner." Then the player gets to decide of his PC is intimidated or not and inform you about what his PC does in response to your description of the environment.

DM: You try your best to persuade the king that withdrawing his army before the Tarrasque arrives is the best course of action, but he steadfastly refuses to hear anything you say.(no roll, because the outcome is certain). You do notice, however, that the kings trusted advisor seems worried about the king's decision.

Players: We wait until the audience is done and see if we can get an audience with the king's advisor.

(RP and rolls if necessary here)

DM: You enter the advisor's chamber and you see him pacing near the window, looking out towards the plain where the army sits.

Players: We speak to him about the deadliness of the Tarrasque and the inability of an army to handle such a legendary beast.

DM: The advisor is easily convinced by your words(no roll as the outcome is certain) and he tells you that he will speak to the king directly and try to persuade him. He tells you that they've been good friends since childhood and the king will sometimes listen to him when he refuses to hear others.

(DM rolls a persuasion check on behalf of the NPC advisor to persuade the NPC king)

That's why they have social skills.

I'm sorry you think that having 1 NPC use a social skill on another NPC instead of plot pointing it is more likely then the stats are there to inform how X they are (x being the skill)

 

[clearstream]

I'm sorry you think that having 1 NPC use a social skill on another NPC instead of plot pointing it is more likely then the stats are there to inform how X they are (x being the skill)

I sometimes make ability checks for NPCs behind the scenes. It's a way to let weighted-probabilities emerge a possibly different line of narrative from what I might have fallen into otherwise. So when @Maxperson makes that check, it explores the question of whether the players have chosen the most effective representative, and leaves the emergent fiction partly up to chance.

Concretely, why do you feel just deciding is better? And if just deciding is better, why use the stochastic mechanics of RPG at all? Surely you can just decide that the ogre crits the paladin with that maul? Note that I am not asking these questions to be answered directly, but rather to cast a searchlight on the motives for letting the stochastic mechanics guide even behind the scenes events.

 

[HammerMan]

Concretely, why do you feel just deciding is better?

I don't think either is better or worse, and in my own games I think i mix the two. I just find it unlikely that npc vs npc is what the monster Manuel was meant for.

And if just deciding is better, why use the stochastic mechanics of RPG at all? Surely you can just decide that the ogre crits the paladin with that maul?

and that also seems like it goes more in my arugment favor. I want to use IN GAME stats not out of game description to effect the world.

 

[clearstream]

and that also seems like it goes more in my arugment favor. I want to use IN GAME stats not out of game description to effect the world.

I am probably misunderstanding you. Do you exclude an NPC's Charisma (Persuasion) from "in game stats"? Because wouldn't using a check against an NPC's Charisma (Persuasion) count as using an in game stat to affect the world?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

sure is, right in the monster manwe have stats and skills

yuo good on you just don't pretend it is written in stone somewhere

Certainly not in stone, but it is right there in the PHB page 185.

I have provided it, you just don't like it

I may have missed it, too. Do you have a page number (or numbers) to support how your way is supported by the 5e rule set?

and again I ask what resource (someone said inspiration) so show me how to use it to effect the orcs roll.

It’s not RAW (at least I don’t think so) but I’ve seen Inspiration used to impose disadvantage on a NPC’s roll.

and asking seems supported by the rules too

um cause you are friends playing a fun game?

yup and the DM is a player too...

an no one suggested you "tell them how to play their character"

You do see how advising, no matter how benevolently it is done, is telling someone how to do something, yes?

 

[HammerMan]

I am probably misunderstanding you. Do you exclude an NPC's Charisma (Persuasion) from "in game stats"? Because wouldn't using a check against an NPC's Charisma (Persuasion) count as using an in game stat to affect the world?

I do not exclude it, I am one of the people in the thread arguing to roll NPC/Monster skills (even social) Where you jumped in was me saying that "NPC vs NPC doesn't seem more likely then NPC vs PC in the monster manual"