D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

I would agree with you that most of the DMG consists of guidelines.

Guidelines are a flexible way to advise DMs how they might run the game. With guidelines, it's okay to have contradictory statements because they don't have the weight of rules: readers don't need to decide or agree on which prevails. What prevails is whatever the reader wants to take away from the guidelines. My stance is that in conjunction with other designer statements and community norms, guidelines give us RAI.

Put this way, I can understand your desire to distinguish between guidelines and rules. I don’t really see rules that tell you you can ignore them if you feel like it as carrying much weight to begin with, and my way of trying to understand what is supported by the text is to give weight to the guidelines as well as the rules, so as to arrive at the way the system as a whole is intended to be used (which I seem to have done pretty well, given that developer comments agree with my ruling). But still, I can understand the desire for such a distinction.

Thar said, I take issue with calling a rules-only reading “RAW” and rules-and-guidelines reading “RAI.” If you are comfortable expanding the R in RAI to include both rules and guidelines, there is no reason not to expand the R in RAW the same way. And given that the guidelines in question are written in the text, and are as often in need of clarification on the intent behind them as the rules are, I believe RAW is the more accurate way to categorize them.

 

[clearstream]

I don't quite agree with that. The encounter creation rules. The entirety of them......................guidelines. Every last rule in the DM's workshop...............................guidelines. All the rules on creating NPCs.......................guidelines. All the magic item and treasure rules........................guidelines.

5e has created a situation where guidelines and rules are completely interchangeable.

I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with, because I am not disagreeing with you. The core books contain rules, guidelines, examples, flavour text, indexical text. That's true of the DMG. Can you explain our supposed disagreement on this so that I can see what it consists of?

 

[Bill Zebub]

Irony.

Okay, back to stalking this thread.

The only possible interpretation I have here is that you think I'm trying to force people to share my aesthetic preferences.

 

[clearstream]

Put this way, I can understand your desire to distinguish between guidelines and rules. I don’t really see rules that tell you you can ignore them if you feel like it as carrying much weight to begin with, and my way of trying to understand what is supported by the text is to give weight to the guidelines as well as the rules, so as to arrive at the way the system as a whole is intended to be used (which I seem to have done pretty well, given that developer comments agree with my ruling). But still, I can understand the desire for such a distinction.

Thar said, I take issue with calling a rules-only reading “RAW” and rules-and-guidelines reading “RAI.” If you are comfortable expanding the R in RAI to include both rules and guidelines, there is no reason not to expand the R in RAW the same way. And given that the guidelines in question are written in the text, and are as often in need of clarification on the intent behind them as the rules are, I believe RAW is the more accurate way to categorize them.

That's a good post. There are meaningful and useful distinctions normally made between RAW and RAI. Developer comments in the past have been characterised as producing RAI. Hopefully all this will turn out to be unimportant, because it expands the scope of discussion into a fascinating - but expansive - area. One I'd enjoy digging into sometime... but maybe not at this time

 

[Lyxen]

That's a good post. There are meaningful and useful distinctions normally made between RAW and RAI. Developer comments in the past have been characterised as producing RAI. Hopefully all this will turn out to be unimportant, because it expands the scope of discussion into a fascinating - but expansive - area. One I'd enjoy digging into sometime... but maybe not at this time

The problem, I think, comes from people using RAW and RAI in a different way from what the devs intend. Everything in the book is - by definition - written, so everything in the book is RAW. Now, the devs themselves don't make differences about what it's in there, they call everything rules and everything guidelines, and considering that everything is flexible anyway for any given DM, it makes sense. Some will consider some sections of the book as rules, others as guidelines, who cares ? Actually, there is only one type of person who cares, more about this below.

The RAI is defined by the devs themselves as "what the designers meant when they wrote something", but again, first no difference between rules and guidelines, just between what has been written and a possible interpretation of it. But even if you make a difference between a rule and a guideline in the books, I think it's clear that it's as easy to determine the intent from a rule than from a guideline, actually more so.

Also note that, from the dev "In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent." And that's it.

So I think it's a bad idea to consider some sections of the books as RAW and others as RAI, it's clearly not aligned with the definition, and by doing it you would just start another semantic war.

Now, coming back to people insisting on the RAW, I must say that, in the end, it's really the mark of OneTrueWayism, which I believe is rightly frowned down on these forums. I will also say that, to my shame, I still sometimes engage in these discussions these days, my only excuse being to try and demonstrate that some people really have ridiculous interpretations.

I think that once more the problem is that, from a shallow perspective, the 3e and 5e rules look very similar at some level, but in the end, the way they have been written and the intent show something very different in terms of spirit and intent for the game. We are having a very interesting discussion about the possible differences between PCs and NPCs and the use of social skills, which relies a lot more to the way people tell stories and create characters, and how they generate their adventures and situations than anything in terms of RAW and RAI, seeing that 5e is extremely open and supports an extremely wide range of gaming styles, so I find it a bit sad when it drifts into a RAW/RAI discussion, especially when these terms are being used to say something completely different from the dev's perspective on them...

 

[Lyxen]

And this brings it right back to what I said about 75 pages ago: if PCs can choose to ignore these things there's no justifiable reason why NPCs can't make that same choice, which makes the very existence of those skills pointless. Get rid of them.

And I think that there is still a difference between "can choose to ignore" and what the players actually do. Yes, my players are free to ignore the fact that I described the Pit Fiend General of Zariel as extremely intimidating, but they don't, because they roleplay around these descriptions as much as around my descriptions of what Avernus looks like. It does not prevent the assassin in the group to scheme behind the pit fiend's back, but the player does so with a healthy respect for the power of the Pit Fiend. Whereas, on the other hand, I have described the General of Bel as being suave and courteous, although he is actually much more powerful and dangerous than the pit fiend, both technically and in terms of intrigue (he is a unique Devil, something that they have not really caught on to yet). And because of these descriptions, their roleplay is much more "at ease" around the latter, something that the assassin will probably regret tonight during our next session, because her relaxed attitude has made a lot of things slip and she will have nasty surprises when the trap springs.

Once more, I think the problem is that a number of people here are talking in terms of absolute, "does this roll have a technical effect or not?", when I see in particular the social skills being much more subtle, the information provided (or hidden, depending on the roll) by the DM might actually have a much greater influence on the way the players play their PCs than a technically passed or failed roll on a technical skill.

Finally, I don't usually roll dices (I'm very much for the "ignore the dice" view on the "The Role of Dice", because, as outlined in there, I think that this approach rewards creativity and encourages players to really project their PC in the game world), but I do so sometimes for social rolls, including NPCs, because I'm very much aware than, even with the same attitude, depending on totally unforeseen factors, you can be extremely convincing or totally worthless in any type of discussion.

I was at a large conference this week, making speeches and doing demonstrations, and sometimes I felt I was good, and sometimes I felt was totally unconvincing, without any special reason, for things sometimes as futile as having a projector shining light in my eyes and preventing me from really looking my interlocutor right in the eyes, which is something that I really use whenever I can to convince people. Had I been positioned slightly differently, I probably would have been way more convincing. So sometimes it hinges on very small random things, and this is what I want to reflect, especially when I think the story can be great either way.

Because of course, another advantage of ignoring the dice is that if I see an alternative where the story is obviously better for the players by making a certain choice, I will take it. But if I don't see a difference, well treating myself and the table to a dice roll on the NPC part to see how he is doing with these local unforeseen random circumstances (modified of course by his personal ability in that domain) is I think a great way to introduce some surprise for everyone around the table.

 

[clearstream]

Now, coming back to people insisting on the RAW, I must say that, in the end, it's really the mark of OneTrueWayism, which I believe is rightly frowned down on these forums. I will also say that, to my shame, I still sometimes engage in these discussions these days, my only excuse being to try and demonstrate that some people really have ridiculous interpretations.

I think that once more the problem is that, from a shallow perspective, the 3e and 5e rules look very similar at some level, but in the end, the way they have been written and the intent show something very different in terms of spirit and intent for the game. We are having a very interesting discussion about the possible differences between PCs and NPCs and the use of social skills, which relies a lot more to the way people tell stories and create characters, and how they generate their adventures and situations than anything in terms of RAW and RAI, seeing that 5e is extremely open and supports an extremely wide range of gaming styles, so I find it a bit sad when it drifts into a RAW/RAI discussion, especially when these terms are being used to say something completely different from the dev's perspective on them...

And I have made this very point. I have repeatedly said that we can very well consider the whole text holistically - all the rules and guidelines together - and then we will be unable to choose which is the better justified of DM-decides and PC-certainty, other than our underlying preferences. It is my interlocutor who is insisting on higher ground - truewayism - for PC-certainty. It is them you ought to be addressing.

 

[Lyxen]

And I have made this very point. I have repeatedly said that we can very well consider the whole text holistically - all the rules and guidelines together - and then we will be unable to choose which is the better justified of DM-decides and PC-certainty, other than our underlying preferences. It is my interlocutor who is insisting on higher ground - truewayism - for PC-certainty. It is them you ought to be addressing.

My apologies, I was (hopefully) reinforcing your view rather than contradicting you, actually, being in agreement with what you had said. My bad if it appeared the other way, I think out views on this are fairly similar.

 

[Lyxen]

Well, as a lie-detector, I agree. As the social equivalent of perception/investigation, I think it’s useful.

My perspective as well, which is why I'm using it mostly as a passive these days, to provide more information to characters who have a higher value. It works on lies too, but not as an active lie detector where everyone wants to roll, which is probably the worst thing about that skill.

 

[HammerMan]

Ok, so once again we’re back to you assuming that I’m not doing that.

NO I am addressing the advice... Use X, I disagree with useing X by itself and suggest you either instead or also do Y.

I guess what I’m saying is, “why not both?”

that is exactly what I would ask you based on your advice.