D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

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

It seemed implied by the email I was responding to, which seemed to say that they player couldn't tell another player that "given X I will do Y." I'm saying that Parlay doesn't breach that: the player remains in control of their character. What might happen - which I'm exploring in other posts - is that player is required to divulge some information, but again Parlay allows a flat "no".

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Yes, I think I agree with this (that is, if I'm reading it correctly) and it's actually pretty similar to the Parlay I quoted from Stonetop at the beginning.

But I guess my question would be while dice rolls are necessary at all. Why wouldn't the players just say, "Here's how we could be persuaded."?

 

[HammerMan]

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 am trying not to be but in this and anothe rthread I have been repeatedly berated as not knowing/understanding the rules to the game, about not having deep games, about not being able to run games...

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.

let me put it to you this way. FOrget when I am a DM 1 night a week and look at when I am the player 1 night a week + 1 night a month. I as the player need information to role play off of. Yes in theory you can try to give some impossible level of detial, or you can let the player fill in the detail, or you can roll the dice and have them (and the stat and skill) inform the player.

as a player I would prefer I am told by the game mechanic how intimadating the orc is.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Dude. You laughed at a post not intended to be funny(an abuse of the laugh button and against forum rules) and then said, "I'm sorry you think that having 1 NPC use a social skill..." If you don't like it, don't say it.

 

[iserith]

It seemed implied by the email I was responding to, which seemed to say that they player couldn't tell another player that "given X I will do Y." I'm saying that Parlay doesn't breach that: the player remains in control of their character. What might happen - which I'm exploring in other posts - is that player is required to divulge some information, but again Parlay allows a flat "no".

For the record, none of my posts have addressed the proposed house rule except to recommend to one poster that they consider it if they insist on using social mechanics to drive player behavior. My reasoning there is that the house rule provides an incentive whereas the way they were doing it provides a penalty. The carrot may work better than the stick. The rest of my posts are in the context of D&D 5e rules.

 

[Bill Zebub]

it just doesn't seem to be WotC meaning behind printing the MM.

What other evidence makes it "seem" that way? Or do you just mean that you don't think that's what they mean?

I honestly don't know what their intent was, but my best guess is that it's a way of using existing mechanics to add color to the monsters.

In other words:

Skills: Intimidation +2

Is equivalent to what other RPGs might express as:

Traits: Intimidating

 

[Bill Zebub]

let me put it to you this way. FOrget when I am a DM 1 night a week and look at when I am the player 1 night a week + 1 night a month. I as the player need information to role play off of. Yes in theory you can try to give some impossible level of detial, or you can let the player fill in the detail, or you can roll the dice and have them (and the stat and skill) inform the player.

as a player I would prefer I am told by the game mechanic how intimadating the orc is.

Yeah I think we both just said pretty much exactly the same thing using slightly different words.

It's just that you're playing the game wrong. (KIDDING! That was a JOKE.)

 

[iserith]

Shortly after a thread on this topic some years ago, I wrote a short-form scenario and posted it here which includes NPCs/monsters making use of social skills. Here's the link for those who want to see it: How to Defeat the Forum Troll.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Although as a player I want to make my own decisions, as DM I want to fall back on the mechanics. For two reasons:
1) I want to be a (more) neutral arbiter of outcomes.
2) It's too much work to fully roleplay all those different characters, on top of all the other work of DMing.

So I take your point, but that's not how I want to DM. I'd be fine with other DMs doing it when I'm a player, though.

I was having very similar thoughts.

In 5e, Intimidated/Persuaded/Deceived are not conditions and are not magical. There is no compulsion to achieve these states. Therefore, I'm not going to force them upon my player's PCs by auto decree or by dice.

Players know their PCs, presumably really well. They have 1 PC each at any given time (or maybe 2 or 3 depending on the campaign style). They are the experts on how their PCs think, speak, and act. In a social interaction, these rules on page 185 leave the determination of whether a PC is intimidated, persuaded, or deceived during the course of play in the player's purview. A very basic example: a quest giver asks the PCs to perform a job for them in return for a reward. The PCs agree. The PCs have been persuaded without a roll. Or the PCs disagree. I'm not going to force a Persuasion roll here as DM, hoping to force them to follow the quest. But I am going to curse under my breath as we improv something else entirely, likely a shopping trip, since I only had that one quest prepared that night. I kid... mostly.

The DM, meanwhile, is running everything else, including the environment and a multitude of NPCs and monsters, many (most?) of which are not recurring. The DM does not play these same NPCs/monsters at every session (unless we're talking about a DMPC, but that's a whole 'nother thread.) It is often easier to outsource the reaction of a new NPC/monster in a social situation to the dice - if there is some uncertainty and meaningful consequence for failure, that is.

That said, an interesting use of NPC/monster Charisma proficiencies is to use them as the opposed roll when a PC is trying to figure out more about them. For instance, in a scene where the baron's shady advisor is clearly trying to persuade the PCs to do something, and one character wants to figure out what the advisor's motivations are, a DM might call for a PC Wisdom ability check (likely Insight) opposed by the NPC advisor's Charisma(Persuasion) or Charisma(Deception). On a failure, the motivations are inscrutable. On a success... baron might need to post an opening for a new advisor.

 

[Maxperson]

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."

Yes. That bolded is saying that the players can influence the NPCs.

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.

Absolutely. The DM is the one that calls for a check.

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.

No. You've missed the bolded and underlined. The PHB is speaking to the player(not the DM) about PCs using skills on NPCs. Further examples would include the PC trying to persuade a dragon not to eat him, talk an ogre into attacking some orcs, and so on.

If the social skills rules were intended to be used against PCs, there would be one example or statement somewhere in the PHB or DMG. Just ONE. There isn't, because they are to be used against NPCs only.

The DM can certainly make them work on PCs, but that's not supported by the rules anywhere and every implication is that it isn't intended to happen.