D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

I am specifically wondering how you adjudicate actions in 5e. Use the examples of 1) a PC trying to intimidate an NPC to make it do X; 2) an NPC trying to intimidate a PC to make them do Y.

I had an idea relating to this. Modifying the cases slightly - the goal of the intimidating character in each case is to find out something from the intimidated character.

1) PC describes an approach using coercion to find out if an NPC prefers snails over oysters. As DM and complying with what I believe RAW entails, I decide the NPC is hostile due to this coercion so I call for a CHA (Intimidation) check from the PC and resolve it using the Hostile table from the DMG.

2) NPC describes an approach using coercion to find out if an PC prefers snails over oysters. I'm going to suggest this is put incorrectly, it should be

2') PC describes an approach using deception to avoid disclosing to a threatening NPC whether they prefer snails over oysters. So here the PC has the agency. They've said what they decided to do. Again, complying with RAW, I'm going to call for them to make a CHA (Deception) check contested by the NPC's CHA (Intimidation). Now you could say you want to make that WIS (Insight) for the NPC, and that would be fine, but as DM in this case I have decided that the challenge for the PC is resisting coercion.

What do you think?

 

[Lanefan]

If guidance is written in the rulebook, arguing that it isn’t part of the rules as written seems pretty asinine to me.

Not if one considers guidance to be just that; as something distinct from hard rules.

I mean, there's lots of stuff in there about how the designers think you should play (e.g. high-fantasy heroic, with goodly characters) but going against that (e.g. lower-fantasy gritty with less-than-goodly characters) doesn't to me count as houseruling; it's just ignoring a mechanically-weightless guideline in favour of something that - for that table - one hopes will work better.

Contrast this with changing a hard rule e.g. tweaking the xp chart to slow down levelling or redesigning your game's initiative system. Those are houserules all day long.

Put another way, RAW carries weight. GAW (Guidance As Written) doesn't so much, and this has been true in every edition.

Many of these arguments seem to come from people taking things written as guidance - or worse, taking out-of-context snippets of guidance - and reading them as if they were hard rules.

 

[clearstream]

Not if one considers guidance to be just that; as something distinct from hard rules.

I mean, there's lots of stuff in there about how the designers think you should play (e.g. high-fantasy heroic, with goodly characters) but going against that (e.g. lower-fantasy gritty with less-than-goodly characters) doesn't to me count as houseruling; it's just ignoring a mechanically-weightless guideline in favour of something that - for that table - one hopes will work better.

Contrast this with changing a hard rule e.g. tweaking the xp chart to slow down levelling or redesigning your game's initiative system. Those are houserules all day long.

Put another way, RAW carries weight. GAW (Guidance As Written) doesn't so much, and this has been true in every edition.

Many of these arguments seem to come from people taking things written as guidance - or worse, taking out-of-context snippets of guidance - and reading them as if they were hard rules.

I have a strong hunch there's some motivated reasoning going on. In DMG 244, the PHB 185 Social Interaction text is identified as "guidelines for balancing roleplaying and ability checks in a social interaction". The reference is specific: there is no doubt what it refers to.

My dear adversaries in this matter, know that they need PHB 185 to stand so that they can build their castle in the air upon it. They cannot concede this point without their castle toppling down. That is why I am not engaging with them on it: I don't anticipate honest arguments to be forthcoming.

I'm very happy to concede that RAI is informed by PHB 185. I agree with many - but not all - conclusions based on that. A DM is supported by RAW to decide something a character attempts is uncertain. How they should wield that power is another matter.

 

[Campbell]

I feel like both the description of the basic play loop and of roleplaying are meant as generalized descriptions of the way things usually work. They are natural language as compared to technical language. They should not be parsed in such a technical way. I also feel people are reading in (exclusively and without meaningful constraints) into a lot of these sections when there is nothing elsewhere in the text that would imply that we are not beholden to one another when we play the game. Quite the opposite actually. Collaboration is stressed throughout the text.

 

[Bill Zebub]

According to you, this piece of guidance is a rule. Per RAW, every player creating a monk must think about their connection to their monastery. Which is delightfully ironic because that would stand in direct contradiction to another piece of guidance, which is that the player decides what their character thinks.

Just taking your argument at face value, it tells the player what to think, not the character.

The rest of the post is similar.

(Although full credit for dogged tenacity in finding those quotes.)

 

[iserith]

Ignoring RAW for just a moment, it occurs to me that the PC's passive perception score here might serve as a DC for anything involving deception, lying, persuasion, disguise, and the like.

Doesn't work nearly so elegantly for intimidate, though.

Generally, passive Insight is going to be what is used when it comes to noticing whether the NPC's body language or mannerisms suggests something about their agenda, intentions, or truthfulness, if it's appropriate to use a passive check at all. But again, a passive check is just a special type of ability check. And for there to be an ability check, the player must have declared an action for which there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. When it comes to influencing a PC, there's no uncertainty as to the outcome, so no check, passive or otherwise, is appropriate.

I think where some get twisted up on this is that they feel the need to roll dice when an action a monster takes smells faintly like it aligns with a "skill check." The monster lies to the PC, so they must make a Charisma (Deception) check. The DM here is failing to consider the rest of the adjudication process which, if they did, would tell them they can't proceed with that check because of the lack of uncertainty as to the outcome. What should happen therefore instead is the DM simply presents the lie to the PC and it's now up to the player to take action to determine whether that's the truth or not (or, alternatively, is persuaded by the NPC or intimidated).

 

[clearstream]

I think where some get twisted up on this is that they feel the need to roll dice when an action a monster takes smells faintly like it aligns with a "skill check." The monster lies to the PC, so they must make a Charisma (Deception) check. The DM here is failing to consider the rest of the adjudication process which, if they did, would tell them they can't proceed with that check because of the lack of uncertainty as to the outcome. What should happen therefore instead is the DM simply presents the lie to the PC and it's now up to the player to take action to determine whether that's the truth or not (or, alternatively, is persuaded by the NPC or intimidated).

What did you think of my cases just above, responding to @Swarmkeeper? That is, what do you think of flipping it so it is always the player attempting to do something. So it goes something like -

DM The cells is small, dimly lit, filthy and damp. Each day the jailer brings the curate, who questions, threatens, attempts to bully you and so on. Sleep is hard to get due to them banging the bars at random intervals. They want to know - is it snails, or oysters you prefer?

P1 There's no way I'm giving that information up! I'm going to try and fool them into believing that I prefer snails though.

DM Okay, I'm judging that the challenge here is resisting their bullying. As they keep pressing you, and making you repeatedly answer similar questions. Make a CON check contested by their CHA. You can add Deception and they'll add Intimidation. If you succeed, then you've fooled them, even through the sleep deprivation and constant questioning. If you fail, they see you are trying to deceive them and maybe things get worse.

So in this case, it's player saying what they decide their character does, and DM is deciding what the challenge is, what's at stake. What do you think?

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, let’s remember that what we’re talking about here is what the rules support. So, what you’ve demonstrated here is that the rules support the player in thinking about their character’s backstory. As well they should.

Right. Nothing in what he posted was actually prescriptive. Even the wizard backstory thing was a demand, which can be ignored. During my life I've told a lot of people who demanded things of me to go pound sand.

The one thing he did post that "seemed" prescriptive, the towns and cities superiority thing, was deceptive and not even guidance. It wasn't advice to the DM or player on how to make towns or cities. It was from the barbarian class primal instinct section, making it just a bit of fluff on how barbarians view the people of towns and cities.

 

[Maxperson]

Not if one considers guidance to be just that; as something distinct from hard rules.

I mean, there's lots of stuff in there about how the designers think you should play (e.g. high-fantasy heroic, with goodly characters) but going against that (e.g. lower-fantasy gritty with less-than-goodly characters) doesn't to me count as houseruling; it's just ignoring a mechanically-weightless guideline in favour of something that - for that table - one hopes will work better.

Contrast this with changing a hard rule e.g. tweaking the xp chart to slow down levelling or redesigning your game's initiative system. Those are houserules all day long.

Put another way, RAW carries weight. GAW (Guidance As Written) doesn't so much, and this has been true in every edition.

Many of these arguments seem to come from people taking things written as guidance - or worse, taking out-of-context snippets of guidance - and reading them as if they were hard rules.

Page 185 is not guidance.

This, "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." does not guide you in possible ways to play your character. It's a definitive rule about what roleplaying is.

 

[Maxperson]

I have a strong hunch there's some motivated reasoning going on. In DMG 244, the PHB 185 Social Interaction text is identified as "guidelines for balancing roleplaying and ability checks in a social interaction". The reference is specific: there is no doubt what it refers to.

Page 244 doesn't prove what you think it does. The common usage of the word guideline involves it being a rule, principle or piece of advice. You don't get to force all guidelines to be mere advice. The page 185 text is not written as advice, so it falls into the rules category.

Edit: And what's ironic is that you are using a guideline to show that page 185 is a guideline. Page 244 is in chapter 8 and the DMG has this to say about chapter 8.

From page 5 of the DMG, "Chapter 8 presents advice for using attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws." Advice = guideline.