D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

and related if the same situation played out with "Remember that time we meet that cool troll, I can't remember his name cause it was 1 1/2 busy crazy months out of game(holidays) but only a few hours ago in game (was doing door to door dungeon crawl) can I get an Int check to remember it?"

No. You don't get to change the scenario. I provided one where the player established a memory(governed by intelligence ability checks) that was certain. Is it okay by RAW for the DM to declare the player wrong about his certain memory and force a roll?

 

[iserith]

except I have read the rules (as have others here) and found they DO infact say that when we don't know the outcome, we use the dice, and we (player and dm) have agreed there is no certainty with every social interaction (I mean of course some are, just like a +9 thieves tool check is gonna make a min 10 so doesn't need to roll unless you house rule the 1 fail rule, and no you can't jump to the moon, and not you can't do a push up for insight)

Yeah, you're using a weighted roll to decide how you want to describe something to the player during a social interaction. The rules don't prevent you from doing it. They just don't support anything other than making actual ability checks which resolve tasks when they have an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

because we have shown you our interpretation and you are pretending it is invalid.

So it's a problem for you that someone you don't know on the internet thinks you're off on your reading of the rules? Okay.

 

[Bill Zebub]

To avoid the lie automatically succeeding. As I can explain below.


Say an NPC gives the PCs some misinformation, but the PCs don't express any doubt or inquiry. And in this case our DM is not taking an acting approach to their presentation of the game-world, or perhaps they think they gave the right subvocal clues, but failed dismally. To me, the characters inhabit the world... so shouldn't they have some chance of noticing the deception? Just as the characters living in the game world have a chance to notice an NPC sneaking up on them, even though there is no one acting that out at their rl table.

There are many approaches that could work here. One is that a DM tells the players that they might be being lied to. Another is the DM decides to make a check for the NPC - CHA (Deception) against passive WIS (Insight). That comports well with other cases covered under RAW (such as where an NPC attempts to be stealthy).

Put simply, a DM can always rule something is uncertain, and are encouraged and endorsed under RAW to do so. The alternative is that in the case at hand, the NPC automatically succeeds.

Actually, the other thing I'll say about this scenario is that you aren't really applying the play loop to resolve the success of an action declaration. You are using the dice roll exactly as @iserith has described: to determine how you describe the environment. Which is fine. It's like rolling for the weather. Whatever method you use to decide how to describe the environment to player is up to you.

(Oops, @iserith in fact just posted exactly that.)

 

[clearstream]

The player can also deem certain things to be certain, per page 185.

On DMG 237 there are these words, addressed to the DM -

At any time, you can decide a player's action is automatically successful.

If PHB 185 is a rule, then a player can decide not to automatically succeed. Right? But then it would not be true that a DM can decide at any time that they are automatically successful. PHB 185 - if taken as a rule - creates straight-up contradictions in RAW that don't exist if we just read the text naturally.

Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.

What is roleplaying? It's defined right here. This is a definition not a rule: it is guidance. When you are roleplaying this is what you are typically doing.

Let me ask you this. During game play the part met a troll named Trool. 2 months of game time, and 1 month of real time later, the player says, "Remember when we met Trool the Troll? He was a cool dude." Would you think it's okay for the DM to stop that player and declare that memory uncertain, and then require the PC to roll an intelligence check to remember?

No, I wouldn't. Nothing I have said has implied I would. But less us take the opposite .

P1 - Remember when we met Trool the Troll?
P2 - No I - Hrukk the Merciless I mean - has no memory of that.
DM - Actually you do remember, because I'm saying you automatically succeed in remembering.

[EDIT To be clear, I absolutely do not think the DM should say that. It would suck! My point is to highlight the contradiction... if PHB 185 were a rule.]

 

[clearstream]

Actually, the other thing I'll say about this scenario is that you aren't really applying the play loop to resolve the success of an action declaration. You are using the dice roll exactly as @iserith has described: to determine how you describe the environment. Which is fine. It's like rolling for the weather. Whatever method you use to decide how to describe the environment to player is up to you.

(Oops, @iserith in fact just posted exactly that.)

I must not be following your thought here. Are you saying an NPC sneaking up on a character is like the weather?

I mean, as a metaphor that's pretty cool

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Tell me how you run the scenario where an NPC wants to sneak up on PCs?

Ask yourself if a DEX (Stealth) check against PC passive WIS (Perception) could in some cases play a part.

Yes. On the NPC's turn, I would ask the PCs for their passive WIS(Perception) scores. I would then roll Dex (Stealth) for the NPC. I believe these mechanics are quite clear in the books. A result of the NPC succeeding: the PCs are surprised (with the chance, of course, that one or more PCs notice while others do not).

I suppose it bears mentioning that the outcome of the check is Surprise. And Surprise has a very specific mechanical effect in the game that prevents a PC from moving or taking an action in the first round of combat (and no reactions until their turn is over). Surprise is a specific exception to a player being able to determine how their character acts. Much the same as being at zero hit points or being incapacitated have similar mechanical restrictions on how a character can act. But demonstrably not the same as nebulous non-magical intimidation efforts, which have no mechanical restrictions laid out in the rules.

 

[clearstream]

Yes. On the NPC's turn, I would ask the PCs for their passive WIS(Perception) scores. I would then roll Dex (Stealth) for the NPC. I believe these mechanics are quite clear in the books. A result of the NPC succeeding: the PCs are surprised (with the chance, of course, that one or more PCs notice while others do not).

Say the NPC isn't planning to attack. They just don't want to be noticed. Perhaps they are scouting.

Your way is totally valid. I just don't see why one would vigorously resist just checking passives and doing it behind the screen. Say the NPC beats all PC passives, is there something you believe the players should be able to do that they wouldn't do if you hadn't overtly asked for their scores?

I generally have on hand my PC's passives. In Fantasy Grounds it presents those on the front page of the character sheets, and also in the party UI so you as a DM you can see all at a glance. It's very handy.

 

[Campbell]

I guess I am not seeing any real support for the thoughts and feelings of the character being the exclusive province of the player, especially when there are all sorts of rules elements that like frightened, charmed, Bardic Inspiration, and Vicious Mockery that imply they effect character emotional states. Is dragonfear not actually fear? It's something the player is instructed to consider for their character, but there's no real support for it being completely unconstrained or solely in the player's hands.

Is the contention really that D&D 5e stands alone in the traditional RPG space of giving players unilateral say in the character's thoughts and feelings? It's certainly not case for Vampire, Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings or previous iterations of the game. Is there some passage I am missing in the DMG with stronger advice on this?

Once again not arguing for stronger social mechanics.

 

[Faolyn]

"Part 3: Master of Rules
The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. For example, a player might want his or her character to hurl a brazier full of hot coals into a monster's face. How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you."

Don't let them unless you want to is EXACTLY what that says. You determine yes or no for each and every one of them. That equates to the answer is no unless you want it to be yes or maybe. It's literally "up to you."

That's a very strange reading of "how to determine the outcome of this action."

"Outcome of this action" means that the PC performs the action and you need to figure out how they do it and what the results from it are. Which is why the example shows coming up with mechanics for an action that isn't covered in the rules.

There is something that says what to do if you want to jump farther. You make an strength(athletics) check. PHB page 175. It just doesn't get specific with how much farther.

I think it's fair to determine that the DC becomes higher the more you jump, right? So at this point I'll abstract it to say that you need to beat DC 1,000 to jump to the moon. And you can still only jump your walking speed.

 

[Maxperson]

On DMG 237 there are these words, addressed to the DM -


If PHB 185 is a rule, then a player can decide not to automatically succeed. Right? But then it would not be true that a DM can decide at any time that they are automatically successful. PHB 185 - if taken as a rule - creates straight-up contradictions in RAW that don't exist if we just read the text naturally.

So the DM doesn't have to have the power to declare both auto success and failure to everything the PC tries. He can have ability to just say yes, but have more limited authority to say no.

As for the conflicting rules of player being able to say no and DM being able to say yes, that's not evidence of anything other than Specific Beats General needs to come into play. Since a player deciding for a single PC under limited circumstances is more specific than the DM being able to say yes in general, the PC rule would trump.

What is roleplaying? It's defined right here. This is a definition not a rule: it is guidance. When you are roleplaying this is what you are typically doing.

No. guidance is "You might call for a check when..."

Something definitive is a rule. This IS the way it is.

No, I wouldn't. Nothing I have said has implied I would. But less us take the opposite .

P1 - Remember when we met Trool the Troll?
P2 - No I - Hrukk the Merciless I mean - has no memory of that.
DM - Actually you do remember, because I'm saying you automatically succeed in remembering.

[EDIT To be clear, I absolutely do not think the DM should say that. It would suck! My point is to highlight the contradiction... if PHB 185 were a rule.]

So this again moves the goalposts, but in a more subtle way than HammerMan tried.

I'm not talking about P2. I'm talking about P1 who established with certainty that he remembered the troll's name. Is the DM by RAW able to tell P1 that he does not remember or that he might not remember and require a roll?