D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Faolyn]

If it's an ability check, what's the DC the DM sets for an orc intimidating a PC?

Those would be contests, so it would be stat versus stat.

 

[iserith]

I really am confused about what you mean when you say "lack of uncertainty" here--or why that means the check can't continue.

In the games I'm playing in or running, what usually happens is a player may ask the DM "can I roll Insight to see if the NPC is truthful?" (or words to that affect). The DM says OK, the player rolls, reports the number, and the DM will usually say something like "the NPC seems to be honest" or "something about the NPC seemed a bit off when they were saying that" or "the NPC is clearly lying through their teeth" or even "you can't really tell." Depending, of course, on the roll, the NPC's Deception, and whether or not they actually were lying. Of course "the NPC seems to be honest" could mean that the NPC is good at lying or is telling what they believe to be the truth, but isn't.

I mean, this is the point of the Insight skill, after all.

The uncertainty in what you're resolving is whether the PC can detect something about the NPC's mannerisms or body language that suggests their truthfulness. The result can be that they do detect something (success), don't detect something (fail), or that they do detect something, but something bad happens (progress combined with a setback).

What we don't do is roll the Charisma (Deception) check for the NPC up front. There is no uncertainty at that point where the PC is concerned since the player decides how the PC reacts to the deception. So, the NPC just lies and now it's on the PC to act. Some DMs may roll the check up front just to inform their description. For example, if they roll low in their estimation, they may describe the NPC as fidgety or talking with a stutter or saying things that contradict other things. If they roll high in their estimation, they may tell the lie smoothly while making eye contact. The key thing is that it's not resolving a task to influence the PC. It's just rolling weighted dice to decide how to describe the environment.

 

[iserith]

Those would be contests, so it would be stat versus stat.

Except a contest is an ability check and, for there to be an ability check, there must be uncertainty as to the outcome. There can be no uncertainty because the player decides how their character thinks, acts, and what they say. It is whatever they say it is. Therefore, the attempt to intimidate the PC is only description of the environment, not a task to be resolved. The player decides the outcome.

 

[Bill Zebub]

yes and no. Hiding in ambush to wait for someone to come by is an example, it may not matter when you hide, but the fact that you did could be important 20 minutes later.

So, let's say you determine success, then 20 minutes later one of two things happen:
- A lost merchant runs by screaming
- Elven hunters come creeping by, alert for anything

That's what I mean that you can't determine "success" of your hiding attempt until somebody comes by. You can do a better or worse job of hiding, but you can't call it successful.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The uncertainty in what you're resolving is whether the PC can detect something about the NPC's mannerisms or body language that suggests their truthfulness. The result can be that they do detect something (success), don't detect something (fail), or that they do detect something, but something bad happens (progress combined with a setback).

What we don't do is roll the Charisma (Deception) check for the NPC up front. There is no uncertainty at that point where the PC is concerned since the player decides how the PC reacts to the deception. So, the NPC just lies and now it's on the PC to act. Some DMs may roll the check up front just to inform their description. For example, if they roll low in their estimation, they may describe the NPC as fidgety or talking with a stutter or saying things that contradict other things. If they roll high in their estimation, they may tell the lie smoothly while making eye contact. The key thing is that is not resolving a task to influence the PC. It's just rolling weighted dice to decide how to describe the environment.

That's in line with what I just explaining to @HammerMan about success. There might not be uncertainty about how "well" the NPC lied/persuaded/intimidated/seduced, but there is uncertainty about it's effect on the PC. And the goal of the action is that effect.

 

[clearstream]

By the way, I'm actually 100% with you: there's a hierarchy, with rules at the top, with guidelines and flavor below that. I argued exactly this point much earlier in the thread, and had that basically summarily dismissed by @Ovinomancer, and nobody came in on my side, so I let it drop.

Apologies for having missed that. It's been a long 100 pages!

But the problem with taking this approach is that it also undermines basically all the quotes...or in some cases not even quotes but inferences...that your argument rests upon. There isn't even a 'rule' that says the play loop applies to NPCs; we are extrapolating that. There's no 'rule' that says how Persuasion, Intimidation, etc. get applied: there's just suggestions/guidelines/flavor text. And even then it says 'you' in the Player's Handbook, and the section on social interaction in the DMG only addresses PC -> NPC. A bunch of the passages you rely on use the word 'might', and I think it's pretty hard to defend 'might' as a rule, unless followed up by how that 'might' is resolved. (For example, in the chapter on combat in the PHB, the word 'might' is used illustratively to describe what sorts of scenarios might occur, not to define rules.)

I'm actually with @Campbell in believing that it is not well justified to treat D&D rules as a computer program. Right up front in the PHB, the designers talk about the flexibility and infinite scope the DM brings to the game. So when it comes to orders of operations, I'm unconvinced that kind of analysis validly applies. If it did, I'm not sure I would map it procedurally in any case.

As to "might" I usually take each possible reading an compare them. I can give some examples of how that looks for social skills if you like? But yeah, it's ambiguous.

So, yeah, sure, let's treat rules as rules. Only PCs can declare actions.

Actually, I agree that the right framing is PCs declare actions. That's somewhat different from saying that they decide how those actions are resolved, e.g. if they are certain or uncertain. DM decides how those actions are resolved, including deciding something is uncertain, certain-fail, certain-success. Consider for instance, even before that, DM must have decided what procedure to use! If we really wanted to exercise DM power to finagle in what they wanted to do, there's no end of tricks we could employ!

 

[HammerMan]

That's in line with what I just explaining to @HammerMan about success. There might not be uncertainty about how "well" the NPC lied/persuaded/intimidated/seduced, but there is uncertainty about it's effect on the PC. And the goal of the action is that effect.

I don't believe the rules RAW, or at my table allow for a PC to Narrate the way a NPC reacts to the skill any more then they can narrate the success or fail of a str check or Int check. This is one of the many disconnects.

I used the example of "I want to rip the bar off the door to open it" is not going to work/fail, just the rip the bar off... now the PC (Me in this case) can make the educated guess that once the bar is removed it will open, but he/she can not ever say it is right)

It is the same with "I intimidate(insert flavor text as needed) the kobold into running away" You can intimidate the kobold or not, and it is a pretty safe bet it will run away, but the DM gets the final call.

Now reverse it and have the DM say "The kobold (god I am laughing typing this) intimidate you into running away" now by raw you determine if it auto fails (my money is yes most times) weather it is a auto make(I doubt anyone here will say yes to this) and if not it is up to the roll... now unlike the above I would say (and I think this is intended but maybe not RAW) the Player gets some say in the auto part... but then if it is possible but uncertain you roll the intimidate against a DC. If the kobold makes it, like the above PC example all it does is intimidate the player, not force him to run (no more then the kobold would be forced to).

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Apologies for having missed that. It's been a long 100 pages!

Indeed!

I'm actually with @Campbell in believing that it is not well justified to treat D&D rules as a computer program. Right up front in the PHB, the designers talk about the flexibility and infinite scope the DM brings to the game. So when it comes to orders of operations, I'm unconvinced that kind of analysis validly applies. If it did, I'm not sure I would map it procedurally in any case.

I agree that D&D is not a computer program. And thank goodness for that. I play, partly, to escape the electronic distractions of real life.

That said, how is this for a procedural map?

1. The DM describes the environment. This is the DM's domain, describing the physical environment along with any creatures present and what they might be doing. And then, after steps 2 and 3 are finished, updating the description to start the loop anew.

2. The players describe what they want to do. Like, how their PCs think, act, or speak. This is the player's domain. Stay out of here, DM - you already have two other steps to manage!

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. Back to the DM. Sometimes with dice to determine outcomes. Back to step 1.

 

[iserith]

Actually, I agree that the right framing is PCs declare actions. That's somewhat different from saying that they decide how those actions are resolved, e.g. if they are certain or uncertain. DM decides how those actions are resolved, including deciding something is uncertain, certain-fail, certain-success. Consider for instance, even before that, DM must have decided what procedure to use! If we really wanted to exercise DM power to finagle in what they wanted to do, there's no end of tricks we could employ!

The DM does decide... but then runs into the rules governing players controlling their PCs' thoughts when it comes to determining uncertainty as to whether a monster or PC can influence a PC. Players decide, thus no uncertainty.

I will say that it's not common in my games for monsters to make ability checks. Generally that's going to be when they try to shove or grapple and there are specific rules governing this. Sometimes it's a contest with PCs to influence some other NPC/monster. But otherwise, all those skill proficiencies in their stat block are just tags so I can use them or not for describing the NPC/monster. I'm not making rolls to inform my description of how they try to do a thing. I just describe it and ask the players, "What do you do?"

 

[HammerMan]

I'm actually with @Campbell in believing that it is not well justified to treat D&D rules as a computer program. Right up front in the PHB, the designers talk about the flexibility and infinite scope the DM brings to the game. So when it comes to orders of operations, I'm unconvinced that kind of analysis validly applies. If it did, I'm not sure I would map it procedurally in any case.

can I just add that is the weirdest part of this argument, it's like the DM is some AI "if they say X you can rule A or B, if they say Y you can rule A or C. taking all the nuance out... and again I feel this is a corner case where we are breaking down anyway.