D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Voadam]

By RAW perhaps, but this is an area where I disagree with both the words and intent of the RAW. The DM should have the same degree of control over NPCs as the players do over their PCs and be able to determine their reactions in exactly the same way.

That said, if a DM or a player can't decide how a character they control will react then they can always randomize it with a self-roll if desired. But that's entirely at the whim of the "recipient", not at the whim of the person attempting to persuade or influence; and need not be binding if a better reaction presents itself.

What this means is that if your PC is trying to talk your way past my NPC gate guard the mechanics (or in this case, lack thereof) should work exactly the same as they would if my NPC gate guard was trying to talk its way past your PC.

In 5e the DM can just determine an NPCs reaction or call for a roll, it is a DM call.

5e PH Page 186

"RESULTS OF ROLE PLAYING
The DM uses your character's actions and attitudes to determine how an NPC reacts.

***
ABILITY CHECKS
In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction. Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC's attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC's reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM's discretion."

5e gives a DM discretion on whether to call for an ability check or not.

The specific wording of Charisma ability checks suggests they work on any subject and do not distinguish between PCs and NPCs. So PCs using them against PCs or NPCs using them against PCs is not prohibited by the wording, but they do only have enumerated examples of the typical PC targeting NPC use.

Page 179:
"Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk."

There is discretion and ambiguity here so a DM can justifiably make a ruling either way, they can justifiably treat PCs and NPCs the same or differently under these rules sections of the PH.

A DM would be justified under these rules in never calling for an ability check, or in calling for one whenever anybody tries to persuade another. There is discretion and justification to treat PCs the same as NPCs for Charisma ability checks or to treat them differently.

 

[iserith]

Surely one of the things a player can be the sole person to decide, is to do what another creature wants them to do.

Why would anyone think otherwise? It's up to the player.

 

[HammerMan]

This falls into the same category of statements as those that begin with "So you are saying that...."

so somthing I said. That is the catagory. something I have said.

or as you are trying to infer some kind of trick or trap or gotcha... it isn't. it IS a rephrasing of exactly what I am seeing from you and others in this thread, but since you seem to think there is only 1 true way to read all written text and everything else is just not there, I am sure you will disagree.

 

[HammerMan]

Page 179:
"Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check. Typically, you use persuasion when acting in good faith, to foster friendships, make cordial requests, or exhibit proper etiquette. Examples of persuading others include convincing a chamberlain to let your party see the king, negotiating peace between warring tribes, or inspiring a crowd of townsfolk."

There is discretion and ambiguity here so a DM can justifiably make a ruling either way, they can justifiably treat PCs and NPCs the same or differently under these rules sections of the PH.

A DM would be justified under these rules in never calling for an ability check, or in calling for one whenever anybody tries to persuade another. There is discretion and justification to treat PCs the same as NPCs for Charisma ability checks or to treat them differently.

okay, so does this end it? the rule for at least 1 social skill say when you attempt to infuence someone and has no monster/npc/pc carve out? is this good enough?

 

[Lyxen]

5e gives a DM discretion on whether to call for an ability check or not.

Indeed, in 5e, RAW, it's always up to the DM, never the players. The players only describe their actions.

"Persuasion. When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check.

Again, notice the "the DM might ask you"...

And in any case, this also falls under the "the role of dice" section in the DMG, the DM can decide results or asks for roll, veirly systematically or as a more balanced things, etc. It's all his decision (although, obviously, if he aims to entertain his players and make sure they have fuun -as he should - he should also choose something that suits the players).

 

[clearstream]

This is what I think @Charlaquin and @iserith have been getting at, and why the whole thing about using dice to resolve uncertainty point is so important, and not pedantic/semantic. Since players control their characters' action declarations, there's no uncertainty, and thus no roll is needed.

(One might argue that "being intimidated" isn't an action declaration, but, as I pointed out, if being intimidated doesn't restrict action declarations then it's just a roleplaying cue, and if it's just a roleplaying cue does it really need mechanical reinforcement? That smells to me like not trusting other players to roleplay.)

Interestingly, the opposition to their stance seems to fall into two camps with similar but opposite arguments:
@Lanefan seems to agree that there's no uncertainty if the PC's player claims there's no uncertainty, but that the same is true of NPCs, with the DM being the "player". (And I sort of agree with him: it is up to the DM to decide if there's uncertainty in those cases.)
The other camp says that there is uncertainty, that just like players can't declare their weapon hits, they can't declare they aren't intimidated.

I'm entertaining a third category of uncertainty - what player-characters know? As follows

1. I generally take persuasion to require something to be on offer in exchange for some action (or inaction)
2. Successful persuasion could then mean any or all of
   1. The PC knows what they would need to offer
   2. The NPC is clear on what action is wanted in exchange
   3. The NPC knows that the PCs offer is good (else its deception, not persuasion!)
   4. The NPC is willing to accept less (and possibly in the case of failure, demand more)

Nothing there needs to amount to mind control - the NPC isn't forced by persuasion to do the action - and there is still plenty of room for uncertainty. To put it another way, the NPC's decision may be deterministic, but the facts in play between the parties remain stochastic.

Were that how it worked, then it could as well be symmetrical. A PC gets to decide, but they base their decision on the facts in play which are established stochastically. That could go something like this

1. Queen Meg (NPC) wants to persuade PCs. "Please, do as I desire in this matter!"
2. DM makes a check or perhaps its a contest, but let's say Meg prevails. PCs are required to say what it would take to go along with the persuasion (what needs to be on offer). We can take it that PCs must play in good faith and are privy to their own thought processes, so this must be genuine: if what they ask for is given, they really will do the thing. "We would, were we only to have the means to sustain our families in our absence, perhaps 500 gp?" (Or "Apologies your Queeness, there's no way we can do that.")
3. Given Meg's success (or as a result of further checks) the DM makes clear the degree of comfort that Meg's offer will be good (gives the party accurate or perhaps inaccurate - given deception - clues as to that.) "Look, here is a bag of coin that you can verify with your own eyes to contain 500 gp, and I will escrow it with Doctor Quine who you well know you can trust."

In the past I have seen much social interaction cut straight to the point of decision. The check is taken to be - does PC mind control NPC to do X? That can be nuanced by supposing there are some Xs that the NPC will on no account do, but we are still focusing the check on establishing the decision. What Parlay introduces is focusing the check on facts surrounding the decision. What will you do? What would make you do X?

The decision remains up to the PCs, but if they have hand-on-heart said they would please Queen Meg in the matter, were they given 500 gp, then they are either employing deception (which Meg might see through) or they are sincere. Given the latter, there doesn't seem any reason why they should choose not to please Meg: seeing as they said they would do so in the given circumstance. They could prevaricate, and that can play out as it should. They might lie, and again there is no issue. We could gain scope for symmetry - NPC to PC and PC to NPC - without making social skills mind control for any side.

 

[iserith]

okay, so does this end it? the rule for at least 1 social skill say when you attempt to infuence someone and has no monster/npc/pc carve out? is this good enough?

PHB page 185 is the "carve-out." The player decides what the character thinks, does, and says. Add to this the rules for ability checks which say that the DM calls for a check when the result is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure (both PHB and DMG).

Given that the player decides the character's response to an attempt to intimidate, persuade, or deceive them, there is no uncertainty - it's whatever the player says it is. If there is no uncertainty, then there can be no ability check. So, no roll.

A roll used to determine how intimidating the orc is, for example, is just the DM throwing some math rocks around to inspire their description of the environment. This isn't an ability check nor any mechanic in the game that impacts anything. There is no rules support for this. But, again and as always, play however you and your group prefer. Just don't claim it's supported by the rules. Because it very clearly isn't.

 

[Maxperson]

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 prefer deeper games where things outside the PCs happen(with and without PC prodding), which means that NPCs have different agendas and will often interact with each other according to their goals. If the outcome of those interactions is in doubt, those skills come in handy for the rolls. I'm sorry that your game isn't that deep. It really adds a lot for the players.

 

[Bill Zebub]

and that is fine for there games, no one is saying they need to change. People ARE claiming that we are not using the rules because we read them differently... We DO se an uncertainty, and as such we roll.


right, becuse no matter how many time me or others have said we let the player RP, and we pretty much trust them to, you decide to read some extra motive into it other then "we disagree on reading of the rules"


and again, this comes down to us reading the rules differently, and as such we can discus the pros and cons but if we keep insisting "My way is the only way supported by the rules" it leads to these weird circle again.

I can see why you might be getting touchy at this point, but I wasn't arguing with you or tell you that you are wrong, as much as trying to lay out...and acknowledge as valid...where the differences in opinion are.

I guess my comment about "not trusting the players" sounded hostile; that was poor phrasing. Because it's really a difference between two styles:
- In one version, players are given "cues" of how their character should be roleplayed, even if there's no mechanical reinforcement.
- In another version, it is 100% up to the player to decide what their character thinks and does.

Version 2 seems to bother some people, which I expressed as "trusting" other players. I.e., if the orc tries to intimidate a PC and the DM rolls dice for the orc and rolls well, the player should act suitably intimidated. And a failure to do so would be breaking the social contract. All I'm saying is that if that's how it works, then either the player adheres to the social contract or they don't. And if they do, then all the DM has to do is narrate intimidating behavior, and the player should play along.

But, at the same time, I can understand how some people...even if I'm not one of them...might like the dice providing those nudges to the direction of the narrative, and that it has nothing to do with trust. So I apologize for phrasing it that way.

 

[HammerMan]

I prefer deeper games where things outside the PCs happen, which means that NPCs have different agendas and will often interact with each other according to their goals. If the outcome of those interactions is in doubt, those skills come in handy for the rolls. I'm sorry your game isn't that deep.

I'm sorry you are so snotty that you snap at everything someone says that you don't like. I already said up thread (how many times do I have to repeat myself) that I do use npc vs npc stats sometimes... it just doesn't seem to be WotC meaning behind printing the MM.