D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Lanefan]

You're making an arbitrary and baseless distinction here. This is fully unsupported position. Spells and ability checks are both rules, which can equally limit how the character can behave.

Thing is, it seems ability checks in 5e flat-out lack the mechanical teeth to impose such limits. A player running a PC is free to use the checks to inform roleplaying but is also free to ignore them completely; hence my questioning the point of those abilities' existence.

 

[Charlaquin]

The text might not suggest narration-informing but as it seems such an obvious secondary use for the roll, why not do it anyway?

No reason not to do it anyway if you want to. We are arguing about what the text supports, not what is best practice.

 

[Charlaquin]

It literally segues deciding the resolution into forming the narrative. Here is the whole text (PHB 6).

How to Play​

The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.

1. The DM describes the environment.​

The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).

2. The players describe what they want to do.​

Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.​

Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
This pattern holds whether the adventurers are cautiously exploring a ruin, talking to a devious prince, or locked in mortal combat against a mighty dragon. In certain situations, particularly combat, the action is more structured and the players (and DM) do take turns choosing and resolving actions. But most of the time, play is fluid and flexible, adapting to the circumstances of the adventure.
Often the action of an adventure takes place in the imagination of the players and DM, relying on the DM’s verbal descriptions to set the scene. Some DMs like to use music, art, or recorded sound effects to help set the mood, and many players and DMs alike adopt different voices for the various adventurers, monsters, and other characters they play in the game. Sometimes, a DM might lay out a map and use tokens or miniature figures to represent each creature involved in a scene to help the players keep track of where everyone is.

You’re conflating the results of an action with the DM’s description of the action.

 

[clearstream]

Thing is, it seems ability checks in 5e flat-out lack the mechanical teeth to impose such limits. A player running a PC is free to use the checks to inform roleplaying but is also free to ignore them completely; hence my questioning the point of those abilities' existence.

They may ignore them, but then they are not availing themselves of the tremendous benefit of the G in RPG. That game mechanics can enhance roleplay. Additionally, there can be some circumstances where some of the consequences depend on the roll, as with my tea-lady example. (The player character lost their biscuit privileges, but it remained up to them if they slunk back to their seat or not.)

 

[clearstream]

You’re conflating the results of an action with the DM’s description of the action.

I simply quoted the actual text.

 

[Charlaquin]

I simply quoted the actual text.

Yes, and you hilighted the word results in red in support of your argument that the DM is supported in calling for a roll to inform them on how to describe the action.

 

[Charlaquin]

1. The DM describes the environment

Quoting myself rather than editing so this doesn’t get missed: This step is where I understand the DM should establish any circumstances that might make an otherwise unchallenging action challenging.

 

[clearstream]

1. The DM describes the environment
2. The players describe how their characters act
3a. DM determines, based on the above, whether the action(s) described can succeed or fail and have stakes.

This is incomplete. In describing the environment, the DM will have in mind or explain factors that might make this particular case more or less challenging than normal.

DM Typically, you can just walk across a room, but the earthquake is pitching the whole building up and down so I will call for a check. (Etc.)

3b. If all three are true, the DM calls for an ability check to determine whether the action succeeds fails.

Not quite. If the DM deems it justified (asking themselves) they can say the action succeeds, fails, or call for a check.

3c. The DM describes the results of the action, as determined in 3a and possibly 3b.
4. The processes repeats from 1.

The text uses the word narrates rather than describes.

If an action would remove a player’s volition to decide how their character thinks, speaks, or acts, the DM would determine in step 3a that it does not have a possibility of success, and so should proceed directly to 3c without calling for an ability check.

Normally, yes, but it is up to the DM to decide that.

Some racial traits, class features, spells, monster abilities, and other game elements might describe specific exceptions to the above. The Swashbuckler feature Panache is a good example of such a game element. It specifically says that, as an action, the player can can make a Charisma (Persuasion) check contested by a creature's Wisdom (Insight) check, which contradicts the general order of operations, directing the player to make an ability check without having to pass through steps 3a and 3b.

Exactly!

 

[Lanefan]

PHB 7 isn’t limited in what way? PHB 7 says that in cases where circumstances make it challenging for a character* to complete a task, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. None of that suggests that the potential outcome of a theoretical die roll can establish the challenge necessary for itself to need to be relied upon.

*it actually says adventurer, but I do believe the intent is for this also to apply to NPCs as well

The bolded bits are clear enough here but the non-bolded sentence doesn't make any sense to me. Can you elaborate or rephrase, please?

I ask in part because just reading the bolded bits, and going with your interpretation that it applies to PCs and NPCs alike, tells me in fairly clear terms that a DM can make a social-ability check for an NPC and have the results be binding on a PC. As I don't think this has been your stance thus far, again I'll ask for elaboration.

 

[clearstream]

Quoting myself rather than editing so this doesn’t get missed: This step is where I understand the DM should establish any circumstances that might make an otherwise unchallenging action challenging.

Just so long as the DM has them in mind, or explains them if they seem like something characters should be aware of (e.g. my earthquake.)