D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

But if physical skills can restrain the outcome player's thinking acting and talking determination capabilities, why social skills cannot do that as well?

Give me an example of a social action that, if successful, would prevent another character from being able to successfully thinking, saying, or doing something specific, but wouldn’t prevent them from attempting to think, say, or do that thing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Because physical(apples) is not social(oranges).

No, I don't think that's the distinction. Like has been said, somebody might use a physical act of force to intimidate, or a sleight-of-hand to deceive. It's not what the NPC (or the trap, or whatever) does to the player, it's whether or not a player has a restriction on action declarations, and what the reasoning behind it is.

Like I said, if the reason is a bunch of hand-waving that really means "you just wouldn't even try", then you've crossed the line into dictating how to roleplay the character.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Give me an example of a social action that, if successful, would prevent another character from being able to successfully thinking, saying, or doing something specific, but wouldn’t prevent them from attempting to think, say, or do that thing.

I do think the physical/social distinction has a high correlation to the two categories we are discussing, but it's not actually about physical/social.

 

[Charlaquin]

I do think the physical/social distinction has a high correlation to the two categories we are discussing, but it's not actually about physical/social.

Oh, I know. I’m going somewhere with this.

EDIT: To be more transparent, if someone can show me an example of a social action that can restrict what a character can succeed at without affecting the player’s autonomy to try that thing, I’ll show them a social action that when performed targeting a PC is supported in being resolved via an ability check.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Oh, I know. I’m going somewhere with this.

/popcorn

 

[Bill Zebub]

Somehow I missed this post earlier. Well, not "somehow", I was on my phone. There are some good observations/questions here:

By "binding" I mean that once the dice are invoked the roll determines the result and that result is binding on all involved, meaning neither player nor DM can in good faith ignore it; in other words the generally accepted way of doing things since about forever.

This I agree with.

So, for example, the player says, "I want to try to persuade their highness to let me marry their heir." (Like how I avoided genders with that?)

The DM says, "Ok, I don't think they're going to go for that, from a penniless adventurer, so the DC is 30. And if you fail they are going to be offended and angry, so you could be in trouble. But, if you want to, go for it."

If the player rolls and succeeds, I would expect the DM to follow through. And if the roll fails, I would expect the player to not object to the consequences that were explained (if vaguely).

But...let's look what happens when it's NPC acting on PC:

DM: "Their highness is going to try to persuade you to marry their butler. I think you're probably desperate for a spouse right now, so I'm going to set the DC at 15. Here goes..."

Is it still "binding" if the player didn't actually agree to anything, or even declare an action that would get resolved by a roll? If it's just imposed on them by DM fiat?

EDIT:

I would agree with an argument that the player is bound by all the defined rules in the game: when you get hit with a sword, you lose hit points. When a dragon looks at you cross-ways you make a Wisdom roll, and if you fail you are Frightened. When a monster Shoves you, you get to make a contested Strength(Athletics) roll, and if you lose they pick whether you are Prone or moved. Etc. etc. etc. By playing the game, you are agreeing to be bound by the rules of the game.

But does that extend to whatever undefined consequences the DM improvises? Such as NPCs trying to persuade/intimidate/seduce you?

 

[Maxperson]

No, I don't think that's the distinction. Like has been said, somebody might use a physical act of force to intimidate, or a sleight-of-hand to deceive. It's not what the NPC (or the trap, or whatever) does to the player, it's whether or not a player has a restriction on action declarations, and what the reasoning behind it is.

Like I said, if the reason is a bunch of hand-waving that really means "you just wouldn't even try", then you've crossed the line into dictating how to roleplay the character.

I agree with this. And with your later observation that most of the time it will be social skills vs. physical. But yes, if the table is playing with the Skills with Different Abilities variant, physical intimidation and other unusual combinations of stats/skills will come into play.

 

[Lanefan]

So, for example, the player says, "I want to try to persuade their highness to let me marry their heir." (Like how I avoided genders with that?)

The DM says, "Ok, I don't think they're going to go for that, from a penniless adventurer, so the DC is 30. And if you fail they are going to be offended and angry, so you could be in trouble. But, if you want to, go for it."

If the player rolls and succeeds, I would expect the DM to follow through. And if the roll fails, I would expect the player to not object to the consequences that were explained (if vaguely).

But...let's look what happens when it's NPC acting on PC:

DM: "Their highness is going to try to persuade you to marry their butler. I think you're probably desperate for a spouse right now, so I'm going to set the DC at 15. Here goes..."

Is it still "binding" if the player didn't actually agree to anything, or even declare an action that would get resolved by a roll? If it's just imposed on them by DM fiat?

I'd say yes it is: if it's binding when the player tries to persuade the NPC then it should be binding when the NPC tries to persuade the player.

But with that said, I think this is a bad thing; and it only serves to support my stance that those social mechanics shouldn't exist and that both player and DM should be free to decide for their own characters what becomes of such attempts.

EDIT:

I would agree with an argument that the player is bound by all the defined rules in the game: when you get hit with a sword, you lose hit points. When a dragon looks at you cross-ways you make a Wisdom roll, and if you fail you are Frightened. When a monster Shoves you, you get to make a contested Strength(Athletics) roll, and if you lose they pick whether you are Prone or moved. Etc. etc. etc. By playing the game, you are agreeing to be bound by the rules of the game.

Agreed.

But does that extend to whatever undefined consequences the DM improvises? Such as NPCs trying to persuade/intimidate/seduce you?

Yes, if the DM is bound by rolls when a PC attempts to persuade/intimidate/seduce an NPC it should work both ways.

 

[clearstream]

It’s meant to be an analogous example of the DM deciding something is possible without support from the text. But, yes, I think we’ve arrived at as much of a consensus as we’re ever going to be able to reach.

Very nearly. I did notice one more correction to your game flow. You had it that DM must decide on challenges up front (in step 1. you said.) That isn't right. The words on PHB 6 put deciding on challenges in with players describing what they want to do. It has to be that way, because the approach chosen by players could introduce additional challenges, or perhaps in some way obviate challenges. Example

DM The diver before you somersaults twice and knifes smoothly into the water. You're up!
PC Right, I'm going for a forward dive into five somersaults!
DM Wow, I thought you were going to say three. Five will be more challenging...

As DM cannot choose for player in advance what they are going to attempt and their approach, so the flexibility is required - and incorporated into the text - to determine challenge with consideration to what players describe.

 

[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.

It strikes me that my latest also bears meaningfully on this. You took care to locate decision on challenge (erroneously) in step 1. That's not what the text supports. It puts deciding on challenge just after players say what they want to do. That makes a ton of sense, given that their approach might introduce or obviate challenges. I see now that impacts your model because DM determined challenges modify player determined actions, with the ability to make those that are normally certain, uncertain.

As you know, I have a much simpler model in mind, that doesn't pit player against DM in that way. My stance is that the text best supports player in saying what they want to do, and DM in saying how that will be resolved (including deciding if it is uncertain.) It allows groups to take multiple routes to the same destination, which much better fits with 5th edition's overall approach.