D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

You are conflating acting with outcomes. Player determines how their PC acts (play loop step 2), the DM determines outcomes (play loop step 3).

 

[clearstream]

You are conflating acting with outcomes. Player determines how their PC acts (play loop step 2), the DM determines outcomes (play loop step 3).

I accept that once you are committed to prior-certainty, then you have to read it that way. I don't, so I don't reach the conclusion that you are forced to.

DM decides if something is uncertain. I believe PHB 185 is not a rule, but even if it is a rule, DM wins. DM is "master of rules". That's unfettered. The only choice we are making is how many exceptions and contradictions we want to deal with, to protect something that is in effect fruitless.

Hmm. Think about it this way. Suppose that - contrary to what you currently think - as a DM you could rule it anyway you liked. Would you then go ahead and take it that you should trample all over player agency?

 

[Maxperson]

I believe PHB 185 is not a rule, but even if it is a rule, DM wins. DM is "master of rules". That's unfettered.

And is completely different. Nobody is disputing that the DM can alter the rules if he wants to. So yes, the DM can win this if he wants to house rule the situation.

Hmm. Think about it this way. Suppose that - contrary to what you currently think - as a DM you could rule it anyway you liked. Would you then go ahead and take it that you should trample all over player agency?

No, because the social contract, social skills section and both social interactions sections make it crystal clear that the intent is for that not to happen. And we have confirmation of that by Crawford in his tweet. Page 185 is king in this area.

 

[clearstream]

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.

From the DMG

Dice are neutral arbiters. They can determine the outcome of an action without assigning any motivations to the DM and without playing favourites. The extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.

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.

We can't really take that as a good argument, because it is so easily flipped. Since a DM deciding for a single NPC under limited circumstances is more specific than the PC being able to decide in general, the DM rule would trump.

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?

To which I ask, why would you do that? I mean, as DM I already have the power to achieve that if I want to - even were prior-certainty right. I could just find spells or whatever in RAW (whatever you think is specific enough to trump 185) and have strange entity X make the character not remember? We turn out not to have constrained the DM anyway!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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 make all rolls in the open. Hidden dice just don't work for our table.

Ok, non-combat. If I want the NPC scout to succeed without a check because the PCs were not engaged in any actions that could possibly spot said NPC, I would simply make it so. If I decided an ability check contested by passives were appropriate, because the PCs were engaged in actions that could possibly spot said NPC, my stakes (which I would not tell the players, like I typically do when they are called to roll an ability check for their PCs) would be something like: if the NPC succeeds, a noise or a flash of reflected light occurs nearby; if the NPC fails, they are clearly spotted by one or more PCs. On that success, something is telegraphed to the players, but they need to determine what their PCs do next as that clue could be an ambush or a squirrel or a single sneaky NPC.

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.

Sure, I could look up Passive scores on D&D Beyond or collect them ahead of time and have a post it note on my screen. The way I DM, though, that's just extra effort I don't need to put in, though. Kinda like how I have now outsourced awarding inspiration for playing to the TIBFs to the players. Too much for this one DM to keep track of. YMMV.

 

[Maxperson]

From the DMG

Which is again a very general rule when compared to the more specific page 185 rule.

We can't really take that as a good argument, because it is so easily flipped. Since a DM deciding for a single NPC under limited circumstances is more specific than the PC being able to decide in general, the DM rule would trump.

That's not a flip. The only way that could be a flip is if the DM only ever had one NPC for the entire campaign. In the entire cosmology. No monsters. No cities full of people. No gods. Just one single NPC. THEN it would be the same.

The DM doesn't, though. He has literally millions of NPCs and monsters at his fingertips to decide for.

To which I ask, why would you do that? I mean, as DM I already have the power to achieve that if I want to - even were prior-certainty right. I could just find spells or whatever in RAW (whatever you think is specific enough to trump 185) and have strange entity X make the character not remember? We turn out not to have constrained the DM anyway!

The why doesn't matter. I want to know if you think that the DM can do that with the rules as written. And without finding some sort of magic or entity to do it. Just based on the ability check rules alone.

 

[HammerMan]

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?

I didn't change anything I said AND RELATED... I agree with you on yours, I added to it not detracted from it.

 

[iserith]

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.

I think that raises the question of why you think there needs to be "stronger" rules on this. How many rules are needed to say the player determines how the character acts, thinks, and what they say? Do they need to be bolded or italicized? Underscored? Set in one chapter or another chapter? In the PHB or the DMG or both?

When there are specific exceptions that contradict the rule such that "specific beats general," as in the case of charmed or frightened effects, that's when we see the player having specific limitations on how the character thinks, feels, or acts. Ability checks are not in the same category of these things. They are just mechanics the DM uses to resolve uncertainty when the outcome of a task is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. Skill or tool proficiencies just sit on top of ability checks as a bonus. When the DM is trying to determine uncertainty as to whether an orc can intimidate a PC, the rule comes into play - the result is certain since the player says how the character responds. Therefore, there can be no ability check.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

like when a NPC wants to seduce a PC and it may work it may not and the consequences are also there...
like when any monster in the MM wants to intimidate a PC and it may work it may not and the consequences are alsp there...

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.

no you can think what you want when you fill a thread saying it that is spreading false information

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't change anything I said AND RELATED... I agree with you on yours, I added to it not detracted from it.

Fair enough. They don't get to ask for an int check, though. The player can let me know that he's trying to remember the name of the troll. At that point I can say yes, no or call for a check.