D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

So is it right that you narrow the applicability of 185 to just actions your character performs (and by implication just thoughts your character has, and speech-acts they make)? Producing a subtle distinction between forcing your character deeper underwater using strength, and forcing them to propel themselves deeper underwater using charisma. The cases are not differentiated on outcome, or even necessarily on method of resolution.

This seems to be about volition, but if that is right why need that intrude on resolution? A character can enjoy volition without controlling resolution. We simply avoid overriding their volition when we apply the outcome, just as I described.

You pit your strength against the mermaid's strength. You pit your will against her will. The former we let force because volition plays no part, the latter we narrate but do not let force because we do not override volition.

The text does not suggest that ability checks should be used to inform narration, only to resolve uncertainty of outcomes.

 

[Charlaquin]

I and other posters have noted you rely on special carve outs. Seeing as you won't abandon relying on them, I am forced to mark them.

You have noted this incorrectly.

DM decides what the challenge is, and taking the text holistically there is ample support for them determining the degree of challenge. Normally, jumping to the Moon is impossible. On this occasion, the factors contributing to that impossibility are either not all present, or overridden by some other factor.

Wait, are you saying that the DM could make jumping to the moon possible by adding an element of challenge (let’s say perhaps that the character has weights tied to them, making jumping more challenging)? If so, I simply do not agree.

Again, you want to read leagues into 185, with no corroborating text elsewhere, while ignoring pages of text empowering DM to decide on circumstances and say how anything characters attempt will be resolved.

I’m not ignoring text elsewhere. The DM does decide how to resolve actions, but they can do so with or without the support of the rules. If the DM decides to use an ability check to resolve the outcome of an action that the text suggests the player should decide on, they are doing so without the support of the rules.

Answered above. We need to be careful about taking the broadest possible reading of text we like, and the most miserly reading of text we don't like. I do it too. Hence we should reinforce our readings by looking at the text holistically. What text elsewhere supports our reading of the text at hand?

I don’t believe text elsewhere is needed to support my reading. My reading is consistent with the text as a whole. I don’t need more text than that of the fireball spell to know how fireball works.

 

[Charlaquin]

The conclusion I draw is that players decide how their characters think, act, and talk. I don't add words to the text to make it that they have any role in deciding how to apply the rules.

Yet you added text to every other section of the rules you quoted to “make it” say what you wanted. You weren’t adding text to the rules, you were stating your interpretation of them, and so was I doing with that quotation.

Many lines expressly give that to the DM, so to conclude that the opposite is implied in this line is contrary to the holistic analysis you claimed to be making. Were your view true it would be an overturning of much elsewhere, so can you find any other lines elsewhere supporting that players sometimes determine how actions are resolved?

It does not overturn anything elsewhere. The DM determines how to resolve actions, I agree. Some decisions the DM can make about how to resolve actions are supported by the rules and some are not. For example if a player declared that they cast fireball, the DM could decide to resolve that by calling for an Arcana check, with failure meaning the spell is not successfuly cast. The rules do empower the DM to make such a call. But that would be a call that had no support in the rules.

Unless their DM decides a challenge is involved, which the text endorses them to do.

A challenge can make an otherwise possible but unchallenging action uncertain. It can’t make an otherwise impossible task possible.

 

[Charlaquin]

Of course. Different editions, different rulings. What works well in one edition isn’t guaranteed to work well in another. Silly @Swarmkeeper, 1e rules are for 1e!

I mean personally I don’t care what edition you’re running, telling me a natural 1 represents my best attempt is not what I would call a rule “working well.”

 

[Bill Zebub]

Technically, since @Lanefan rules that you can’t attempt a failed action again until circumstances change, “nothing happens” is a meaningful consequence because it means now nothing can happen, unless you try a different approach.

That’s a great example of an added, artificial rule like I was talking about, needed to prevent multiple attempts.

 

[clearstream]

The text does not suggest that ability checks should be used to inform narration, only to resolve uncertainty of outcomes.

PHB 5 - Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience.

 

[Maxperson]

DMG calls 185 out as less than rules

Does not. It says it's guidance, which 5e treats exactly the same as rules. In 5e guidance and rules are completely interchangeable, so page 185 isn't lesser to anything else that's definitive. Hell, the DMG itself is completely guidance, so you're relying on guidance to tell you that something else is guidance.

When the cat bothers you, put it outside. But what decides when the cat bothers you?

We look to other places to determine that. You keep looking at all of these guidance suggestions where the DM might rule something or other as saying that it can override page 185, when none of them actually do. The DM when determining if he might or might not call for a check needs to make sure that none of the other rules/guidance(since both have the same weight in 5e) dictate anything. In this case page 185 dictates that the player decides when it comes to social skills, so the DM defers to that and this is an instance where the DM does not call for a check. It is not one of the times where he might call for a check.

 

[Charlaquin]

PHB 5 - Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers’ actions and narrates what they experience.

Not pictured: “the DM calls for ability checks to inform their narration.”

 

[clearstream]

Wait, are you saying that the DM could make jumping to the moon possible by adding an element of challenge (let’s say perhaps that the character has weights tied to them, making jumping more challenging)? If so, I simply do not agree.

In a sense you are right, but only by ignoring my actual words. Adding challenge logically won't reduce challenge. However, DM is endorsed by the text to decide that some challenge exists or does not exist, and is greater or lesser, than normal. Something that would ordinarily be impossible, might become possible due to circumstances DM decides prevail in this case.

I’m not ignoring text elsewhere. The DM does decide how to resolve actions, but they can do so with or without the support of the rules. If the DM decides to use an ability check to resolve the outcome of an action that the text suggests the player should decide on, they are doing so without the support of the rules.

DM has the support of the rules in deciding how to resolve actions. You're denial is based on one guideline that you interpret a certain way, and ignores paragraphs of text elsewhere.

I don’t believe text elsewhere is needed to support my reading. My reading is consistent with the text as a whole. I don’t need more text than that of the fireball spell to know how fireball works.

To know how fireball works, one has to read the general rules on spells. The spell's text alone is insufficient. To know fully how a PC may use a fireball, one has to also read many other rules, including the spellcasting features of character classes and the rules on resting.

 

[clearstream]

Not pictured: “the DM calls for ability checks to inform their narration.”

Reread PHB 6. - In those cases the DM decides what happens... the DM narrates the results. Results are what happens. There are many lines of text there and elsewhere buttressing my reading. Your earlier claim to be making a holistic reading has evidently been abandoned.