D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

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.

My view is that "binding" is reading in something that isn't there in all cases.

If our case is a case when the result would harm player determining how their character thinks, acts, or talks, and isn't one of set limits or S>G exceptions, then our case is one where the result would not be binding on the player character.

 

[Charlaquin]

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.)

Agreed; I realized that was missing and added it in a later self-quote.

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

But what the DM is asking themselves is, “can this action succeed? Can this action fail? Does it have meaningful stakes?” and the rules provide support for how best to answer those questions. The DM certainly can answer themselves in a way that is not supported by the rules though, and I believe they would be doing so if they answered “yes” to “can this action succeed?” if the action would remove the player’s volition to decide how their character thinks, speaks, and acts.

The text uses the word narrates rather than describes.

Ok.

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

Right, and the text provides support in making that decision.

 

[clearstream]

But what the DM is asking themselves is, “can this action succeed? Can this action fail? Does it have meaningful stakes?” and the rules provide support for how best to answer those questions. The DM certainly can answer themselves in a way that is not supported by the rules though, and I believe they would be doing so if they answered “yes” to “can this action succeed?” if the action would remove the player’s volition to decide how their character thinks, speaks, and acts.

If they think there are circumstances that ought to make what would normally be certain, uncertain - whatever that is - then they are supported in calling for a check. Where we might agree is that such circumstances are probably rare, when it comes to overriding 185.

In my view, the humility we must show is that we cannot picture every possible circumstance. So while it is true that only if there are the appropriate circumstances should a DM make it uncertain, we can't predict the totality of what "appropriate circumstances" could include! Additionally, the text instructs a DM to ask themselves. I believe that is very helpful: it says - other people can't second-guess you, the rules endorse you making the call that you decide is right. You should take into account challenge and consequences, but what you decide based on how you picture those is up to you.

 

[Charlaquin]

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 is making the argument that the text describing the use of ability checks (for example, “When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision” form a specific exception to the general rule that “a player decides how their character thinks, speaks, and acts” (accepting for the sake of argument that this is indeed a general rule, though it’s worth noting that they don’t actually agree with me that it is). My counter-argument is that for a Charisma (Intimidation) check to result in, for example, prying information out of a prisoner, a Charisma (Intimidation) check would first need to actually be made. Since calling for a check is a step in the How to Play process that occurs only after determining if success or failure is possible, this text cannot form a specific exception to the rule in question, because the check never has the opportunity to be made.

 

[Lanefan]

My view is that "binding" is reading in something that isn't there in all cases.

If our case is a case when the result would harm player determining how their character thinks, acts, or talks, and isn't one of set limits or S>G exceptions, then our case is one where the result would not be binding on the player character.

Isn't there a general rule in there somewhere that says die rolls are binding? (and if not, why not, as it would seem to be a major omission in a game that uses dice as determinants)

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Yes…? The player’s ability to decide what the character thinks, says, and does is not constrained here; only the possibility of succeeding at the action they decide to take is in question (and therefore an ability check is a supported way to resolve this action). As you state in this post.

Their ability to act is constrained if they're bound. Their ability to talk is constrained if they're muffled. Their ability to think might be constrained if they were scared. The first two are actually far harder constraints and if we are truly going to treat p. 185 as inviolable rule, then that could not happen.

And if deciding but not being able to do it is enough to satisfy the 'rule' then we can just say that the player ca decide that their character tries to act brave in face of intimidation, but can't actually do it.

 

[clearstream]

@clearstream is making the argument that the text describing the use of ability checks (for example, “When you attempt to influence someone through overt threats, hostile actions, and physical violence, the DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Intimidation) check. Examples include trying to pry information out of a prisoner, convincing street thugs to back down from a confrontation, or using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision” form a specific exception to the general rule that “a player decides how their character thinks, speaks, and acts” (accepting for the sake of argument that this is indeed a general rule, though it’s worth noting that they don’t actually agree with me that it is). My counter-argument is that for a Charisma (Intimidation) check to result in, for example, prying information out of a prisoner, a Charisma (Intimidation) check would first need to actually be made. Since calling for a check is a step in the How to Play process that occurs only after determining if success or failure is possible, this text cannot form a specific exception to the rule in question, because the check never has the opportunity to be made.

Actually, my argument makes a deeper incision. I say that whether or not Persuasion is such a case, it is possible for S>G cases to exist within the scope of ability checks, and therefore any theory that makes them impossible is incorrect (on whatever details make them impossible.) I believe this is a better argument because we can leave undecided whether we find the text of Deception, Intimidation or Persuasion specific enough. It gets only at the essential fault, which is rendering an exception impossible.

One way to correct your theory might be to concede that an S>G case within the scope of ability checks can form an exception. While tenaciously maintaining that the scope of Deception, Intimidation and Persuasion present us with no such cases.

 

[Charlaquin]

If they think there are circumstances that ought to make what would normally be certain, uncertain - whatever that is - then they are supported in calling for a check. Where we might agree is that such circumstances are probably rare, when it comes to overriding 185.

But such circumstances (if they indeed exist) should be established in step 1, when the DM is describing the environment. What circumstance could make it possible for an NPC to decide something the rules say the player decides? How would the DM describe, and thus establish, such a circumstance?

In my view, the humility we must show is that we cannot picture every possible circumstance. So while it is true that only if there are the appropriate circumstances should a DM make it uncertain, we can't predict the totality of what "appropriate circumstances" could include!

I mean, ok. I can accept that theoretically there may be some circumstance I haven’t imagined that makes it possible for an NPC to decide something the rules say the player decides. I don’t believe there is, as it would require reaching across the fourth wall, but sure.

Additionally, the text instructs a DM to ask themselves. I believe that is very helpful: it says - other people can't second-guess you, the rules endorse you making the call that you decide is right.

Indeed! They also endorse the DM to decide that it’s possible for a character to jump to the moon. I don’t think such a decision would be supported by the rest of the text though.

You should take into account challenge and consequences, but what you decide based on how you picture those is up to you.

Yeah, no argument there. The rules quite clearly say the DM can decide whatever they want, and their decision cannot be second-guessed. I do not contend otherwise. But, I do contend that the rules provide the DM with support for how to make their decision, and deciding that something is uncertain when it would remove the player’s volition to decide what their character thinks, says, or does is not something they provide support for.

 

[clearstream]

Isn't there a general rule in there somewhere that says die rolls are binding? (and if not, why not, as it would seem to be a major omission in a game that uses dice as determinants)

I'm saying there is no such general rule, but if you can quote it then I may concede the point.

 

[clearstream]

But such circumstances (if they indeed exist) should be established in step 1, when the DM is describing the environment. What circumstance could make it possible for an NPC to decide something the rules say the player decides? How would the DM describe, and thus establish, such a circumstance?

I mean, ok. I can accept that theoretically there may be some circumstance I haven’t imagined that makes it possible for an NPC to decide something the rules say the player decides. I don’t believe there is, as it would require reaching across the fourth wall, but sure.

Indeed! They also endorse the DM to decide that it’s possible for a character to jump to the moon. I don’t think such a decision would be supported by the rest of the text though.

Yeah, no argument there. The rules quite clearly say the DM can decide whatever they want, and their decision cannot be second-guessed. I do not contend otherwise. But, I do contend that the rules provide the DM with support for how to make their decision, and deciding that something is uncertain when it would remove the player’s volition to decide what their character thinks, says, or does is not something they provide support for.

Striking through what feels to me like a distraction from our essential agreement, would you say we have reached consensus?