D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

Because I can’t read your mind and don’t know what you’re using it as shorthand for. I need to be able to understand, without having to guess, what you want to accomplish and how.

and agian if you are at the table playing (or running) the game most of the time (at least 7 out of 10) it should be pretty easy to understand in the natural flow... I get it sometimes players say and do weird things. They ask the AC of the Mountain, they say they want to tie a set of slip knotts in the middle of a dungeon, and you have to be like "Wait, what, why?" but most times you shouldn't need to. Most actions make sense in context.

Because a tool is a physical object in the game world with a specific function. I understand what it means to use thieves’ tools, they’re a real thing that has to interact with other objects in a specific way to work. Intimidation is an abstract concept - yes, I understand you are trying to scare the orc, but how and to what end?

I understand what it means to scare/intimidate a creature, and that every creature will react just a bit different. knowing why MAY be a question you have to ask if you don't know what they are doing... but again, they have been in this scene, this nights adventure, and in this campaign...most times isn't it just a natural flow?

 

[HammerMan]

I'm not accusing him of bad faith. I just think that his reading has no justification in the text. Too much is implied, vague, and doesn't contradict or make specific exceptions to the rules he's saying it does.

and he feels the same about YOU and YOUR reading of it... it is the same thing with why @iserith bugs me so much. We all read the books. We can all pull quotes (and some of us will pull the exact same one thinking it supports us even though others think it supports them). The beuity of this is because we are talking about D&D 5e is it was written in natural wording, and with that come interpretations.

 

[Charlaquin]

now only 1 of those seems to be 'examining' so I don't like your examples... casting a spell and consulting a book seem (to me) to be different then examining something.

And this is why simply saying “examining” isn’t clear enough. What you think the word means and what @Nefermandias thinks it means are different, so if they had’t been more specific, you might have incorrectly assumed what they were picturing their character doing and adjudicated the action based on that misapprehension, potentially leading to friction at the table that could have been avoided with a reasonably specific statement of goal and approach.

 

[Maxperson]

and he feels the same about YOU and YOUR reading of it... it is the same thing with why @iserith bugs me so much. We all read the books. We can all pull quotes (and some of us will pull the exact same one thinking it supports us even though others think it supports them). The beuity of this is because we are talking about D&D 5e is it was written in natural wording, and with that come interpretations.

When you are using implications(real or imagined), you cannot say that those implications create specific exceptions to anything. That is not a valid interpretation. Implications are by definition unspecific, that's why they are implications.

If you want to point to something vague and say, this could go either way, that's one thing. See our discussion of whether rule 185 was more or less specific than the ability check rules. However, if you're going to point to something that clearly does not mean what you are interpreting it as, it is a misinterpretation. Nobody is entitled to have their misinterpretations be acknowledged as valid interpretations.

 

[Charlaquin]

and agian if you are at the table playing (or running) the game most of the time (at least 7 out of 10) it should be pretty easy to understand in the natural flow... I get it sometimes players say and do weird things. They ask the AC of the Mountain, they say they want to tie a set of slip knotts in the middle of a dungeon, and you have to be like "Wait, what, why?" but most times you shouldn't need to. Most actions make sense in context.

I never need to ask why, because my players are always clear and reasonably specific with their action declarations - because that’s the expectation I set.

I understand what it means to scare/intimidate a creature, and that every creature will react just a bit different.

Fear is an emotional reaction. There are infinitely many ways one might go about trying to elicit that reaction in someone. If you tell me how you’re trying to scare a creature, I won’t have to guess.

knowing why MAY be a question you have to ask if you don't know what they are doing... but again, they have been in this scene, this nights adventure, and in this campaign...most times isn't it just a natural flow?

It’s always a natural flow for me, again because I set the expectation for my players to be clear, concise, and reasonably specific to begin with.

 

[HammerMan]

And this is why simply saying “examining” isn’t clear enough.

I don't know, even not likeing his example I think it is clear.

What you think the word means and what @Nefermandias thinks it means are different, so if they had’t been more specific, you might have incorrectly assumed what they were picturing their character doing and adjudicated the action based on that misapprehension, potentially leading to friction at the table that could have been avoided with a reasonably specific statement of goal and approach.

Okay, so worst case I assume something incorrectly some % of a time, on things that only happen some % of a time, and we have to rewind for a second. Compared to having to jump through hoops every action (well some actions others it's okay but it seems pretty random) I still think I like mine more...

Especially with established groups...

 

[HammerMan]

I never need to ask why, because my players are always clear and reasonably specific with their action declarations - because that’s the expectation I set.

again, I don't like that jumping through hoops to state obvius things just cause every once in a while it will save the DM form asking... and as a DM I have better uses for game time then having ever PC over explain everything they do.

Fear is an emotional reaction. There are infinitely many ways one might go about trying to elicit that reaction in someone. If you tell me how you’re trying to scare a creature, I won’t have to guess.

I am not batman. I am not into how to invok fear. If my rogue has a high cha, prof and expertise in Intimidate (lets say +9ish) then HE the CHARACTER knows how to elicit that reaction, but I don't. I can no more tell you the equivalent of a 25 intimidate check then I can bullseye a dart board... and based on how someone else wrote such a thing up earlier, it would not be welcome at any of the tables I run/play at.

It’s always a natural flow for me, again because I set the expectation for my players to be clear, concise, and reasonably specific to begin with.

and we just play to have fun. we don't set expectations, and don't try to 'train' each other how to talk... we all do things a bit diffrent and still manage to get along for (in case of some of us) 30 years of gameing.

 

[iserith]

yes every game has diffrent rules.
I can substitote 'dots in search and dots in perception' for 'ranks in search and high stat', or for 5e can replace it with 'prof in perception/investigate and high stat' the rules don't matter it is the style of play i was addressing. The SAME STYLE YOU USE...

My "style" is informed by the rules. I neither play nor GM the exact same way in every game. Except probably there's the same amount of dick and fart jokes regardless of game.

 

[iserith]

and he feels the same about YOU and YOUR reading of it... it is the same thing with why @iserith bugs me so much. We all read the books. We can all pull quotes (and some of us will pull the exact same one thinking it supports us even though others think it supports them). The beuity of this is because we are talking about D&D 5e is it was written in natural wording, and with that come interpretations.

It might be worth examining why you have an emotional reaction at all to what a strange says about D&D rules on the internet.

 

[HammerMan]

My "style" is informed by the rules. I neither play nor GM the exact same way in every game. Except probably there's the same amount of dick and fart jokes regardless of game.

but the Style you are suggesting that you use in 5e, is the same style I have seen in other (mostly older) editions and games, and I disagree with it. I understand it more when there are no rules in place to gage if something happens or how something reacts, and less when there are those rules in place.

So step out of the what dice I roll, or what skill system it is. the example is the same in any edition, and it is an example of the problem with how you read the 5e rules.