D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

So I have to ask: if you're a player and you saw a fellow player outright cheating at your table what would you do?

We're a long time group of friends, so it would come out right then and there. A conversation would be had.

 

[Faolyn]

and another great example of
"If the player catches it then the character does" even if that means a Wis 20 skill expertise in perception AND insight with the observant feat player is oblivious, well a wis 10 untrained character notices because the player knows how to pixel hunt.

Many of the people at my table (myself included, when I play) will make our own Int or Wis checks (without the DM telling us to) to decide if our character would know a thing that we thought of OOC. If we make the check, then it's reasonable that our character would be able to able to say that our player knows it as well.

Sometimes we DMs will straight out tell a player something that they should know or be able to realize because their character would know it, even if the player has no idea.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Are you using the version where players give each other inspiration or the one where players claim it themselves, or a hybrid?

Hybrid

Question: do you keep any sort of track of how often each player (not character, player; as a WM-style campaign often involves multiple PCs) receives inspiration? How often they give it out? How often they self-claim it?

I have far too much other stuff to worry about than to monitor how much inspiration the players are taking. The rule is to take 1 inspiration per character trait, ideal, bond, and flaw per session. As part of the social contract the players follow the rules, often announcing the fact when they play to the particular TIBF.

Players maybe give it out maybe once per session. I have no idea how often they self claim it as it is not always announced. I see it used sparingly, all the same. Players seem to want to use these buffs in the right moment like they are a single use magic item and then end up not using them at all. Also our rule is that inspiration doesn't carry over to the next session so I'm not sure why they don't just blow through them. Maybe I need harder challenges - and I'm blaming you if they get grumpy when I do that!

I ask because if the answers to those three questions turned out to be fairly close to equal* I'd say you're an extremely lucky group.

Thank you. I'm a lucky DM to have many enthusiastic players who all play in good faith.

And something of an outlier. Either that, or your players have collectively meta-realized that giving out lots of inspiration slightly tilts things in their favour in the long run.

* - for each question individually, i.e. if the "received" range is between 9 and 12 over a several-session span (or, say, in a range of 1.2 to 1.5 times per session, if not everyone attends every session) that's pretty equal.

Most groups I've been in, a meta-currency system like that would cause more headaches than it solved simply due to some of the personalities involved.

 

[HammerMan]

So I have to ask: if you're a player and you saw a fellow player outright cheating at your table what would you do?

I would say "hey knock it off" most likely on the down low first, but if it continued I would bring it up to the whole group...

 

[Lanefan]

These sound like good failure states for an ability check. Although the second one might require some awkward retconning of the fiction if the player was more detailed than 5 words in playing out the scene - otherwise, auto-fail during the description: No roll.

The player plays out the scene and the roll informs the result - it's a no go. The early end to the scene is simply one possible narration of said no-go; the PC could have said the entire spiel, only the guard stopped listening after the first sentence.

This one, to be sure, would not have requires a roll in 5e. The outcome was certain. A player describing their PC trying to talk their way past the guard would be met with an auto-fail and not a request from the DM to make an ability check.

Again, not at all. The bribes-only is a post-hoc rationalization of the failed roll (and probably not narrated; the narration might simply consist of "Go away - you ain't comin' in here today." The presence of the DC simply means there was a talk-only approach that could have succeeded (in this case, promising the guard there'd be something in it for him later), the failure simply means in hindsight that the PC didn't stumble onto this approach...which also leaves the door open, if the PCs want to try something different and think of it, to trying a bribe.

For context, I'm thinking here not of anything pre-planned but of having to come up on the spot with a rationalization of a failed roll.

 

[Lanefan]

I've been waiting for someone to put this one up - thanks!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

The player plays out the scene and the roll informs the result - it's a no go. The early end to the scene is simply one possible narration of said no-go; the PC could have said the entire spiel, only the guard stopped listening after the first sentence.

Again, not at all. The bribes-only is a post-hoc rationalization of the failed roll (and probably not narrated; the narration might simply consist of "Go away - you ain't comin' in here today." The presence of the DC simply means there was a talk-only approach that could have succeeded (in this case, promising the guard there'd be something in it for him later), the failure simply means in hindsight that the PC didn't stumble onto this approach...which also leaves the door open, if the PCs want to try something different and think of it, to trying a bribe.

For context, I'm thinking here not of anything pre-planned but of having to come up on the spot with a rationalization of a failed roll.

In 5e, the stakes of success and failure are clearly laid out (or at least should be) by the DM ahead of time based on the goal and approach of the PC. A roll only happens when there is a chance for success, a chance for failure, and a meaningful consequence for failure. Some DMs share the stakes before the player rolls. Some do not. No rationalization post-roll needs to happen, though. I mean, one could add some flair based on the result, but that would just be added description to further flavor the success/failure outcome.

 

[Lanefan]

Hybrid

Got it.

I have far too much other stuff to worry about than to monitor how much inspiration the players are taking. The rule is to take 1 inspiration per character trait, ideal, bond, and flaw per session. As part of the social contract the players follow the rules, often announcing the fact when they play to the particular TIBF.

So in theory each could get 4 inspiration points per session. Got it.

Players maybe give it out maybe once per session. I have no idea how often they self claim it as it is not always announced. I see it used sparingly, all the same. Players seem to want to use these buffs in the right moment like they are a single use magic item and then end up not using them at all. Also our rule is that inspiration doesn't carry over to the next session so I'm not sure why they don't just blow through them.

That strikes me as odd somehow, as it even further removes inspiration from anything to do with the character in the fiction. I think were I to use such a thing the inspiration would tie to the character the play of whom earned it, and stick there until used by/for that character (i.e. if playing Falstaffe's Trait got you the inspiration point that point would stick to Falstaffe until used for a Falstaffe roll). I guess I'd rather see it as the character being inspired, rather than the player.

Yes this would entail one more bit of session-end record-keeping to note who was carrying inspiration forward, but that's trivial.

I say this as we often (as in, most of the time) end sessions in mid-adventure and sometimes even in mid-combat, and it makes no in-game sense for that inspiration to just disappear.

Maybe I need harder challenges - and I'm blaming you if they get grumpy when I do that!

Maybe a simple reminder of "use it or lose it" might suffice? But, blame me if you like.

Thank you. I'm a lucky DM to have many enthusiastic players who all play in good faith.

Indeed.

 

[HammerMan]

In 5e, the stakes of success and failure are clearly laid out (or at least should be) by the DM ahead of time based on the goal and approach of the PC.

so in your mind do you tell the PC IF you make the DC XX this happens if you don't that happens? or do you wait to see if they pass or not?

A roll only happens when there is a chance for success, a chance for failure, and a meaningful consequence for failure.

yup

Some DMs share the stakes before the player rolls. Some do not. No rationalization post-roll needs to happen, though. I mean, one could add some flair based on the result, but that would just be added description to further flavor the success/failure outcome.

 

[iserith]

And yet you've said that you would use that as a clue for other NPCs. And you're still telling me that my PC thinks that fidgeting equals lying.

I might do it because it's possible more than one NPC has this trait or flaw. But no, I'm identifying a trait or flaw for the NPC that your PC can now leverage. I'm not telling the player how the character thinks no more than telling them about the outline of a rectangle on a wall or a scorch mark on the wall indicates a secret door or trap might be present. By the way, you Liked the posts of both @Charlaquin and @Swarmkeeper upthread when they told you more or less the same thing. Assuming your Like meant something like agreement as to that point or at least understanding if not agreement, why then do you continue to go on about this? Do you not remember liking those posts? Because it starts to look personal if you agree with or understand 2 people saying one thing but not another person saying the same thing.

I have a hard time believing that you don't expect the players to do anything with the clue. Do you not have inquisitive players, or players who jump on any unusual thing you point out? Or do your players just dutifully absorb your flavor text and then move on?

And what happens if the PCs miss the clue? Do you use the Three Clue Rule, or just shrug and let the players go on obliviously because they missed their opportunity?

As I've said, sometimes the players investigate the clue and sometimes they don't. It's up to them. I don't care either way. My role as DM is, in part, to simply adjudicate the actions they do take, not expect them take any particular action otherwise or portray their characters in any particular way.

I don't use the Three Clue Rule. I don't find it to be necessary. It may be somewhat useful for running mystery type scenarios, but that's not a game I tend to run in D&D.

Sure. My PCs action is to make an Insight check to see if the guy is lying about what he just said. Would you allow that? Or would you demand I justify the necessity of the roll? Would "because you gave him a trait, which usually means the NPC is special in some way" count as a justification?

I would remind you of your agreement prior to the game to say what you're trying to do and hope to accomplish. I would think someone who cares about immersive experiences would understand this, so I'm not sure why you're struggling on this point. "Make an Insight check" is not an action the character can take. Moreover, it's smart play to take actions that succeed without a roll, with rolls just being backup in case you fall short of outright success. Until you understand this piece, it's not worth going any further with what else might happen in this interaction. So, please show me you understand this and we'll move forward.