D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

I like your post. Bear in mind that it is all imaginary. A character being tied up is just as imaginary as a character huddling on the floor in fear. The fluff is different, but the crunch is identical. The impasse is that if an ability check can tie a character up (preventing action) then why arbitrarily decide that an ability check can't cow a character (preventing action.)

The crunch is not identical. If at some point the cowed character decides that running in fear for his life is better than sitting in fear and waiting to be killed, he can do so. The tied up character has no such option.

There is a difference, but it is really hard to get at and still hasn't been properly articulated in this thread. Earlier I mentioned volition. That is because another poster had talked about a distinction between a player-character moving downward, and a player being forced to decide to have their character move downward. Perhaps look at how we scan the sentence.

1. you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks
2. you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks

Is it that - so long as I get to say what I want to try and do, no matter if I can do that, the sentence requirement is met? Or is it that - so long as I get to say the manner in which I do it, no matter if I can do it in that manner or not, the sentence requirement is met? It can feasibly be both, right? But how do I say the manner in which I am tied up? Isn't that up to the character doing the tying up? And what is the effect of saying what I want to try and do if I can't do it?

Responsive to your closing thoughts, maybe it is saying that - given that my character could do X, it is up to me if they do X. We feel like when our character is (in our imagination) tied up, they could not do X, so it is not up to me if they do X. Whereas we feel like when our character is (in our imagination) upbraided by an NPC, they could still do X, so it remains up to me if they do X.

Perhaps you can see how arbitrary that distinction really is. It is to do with the particular meaning we give to volition. We can readily imagine a world where every creature has a degree of psychic power, so that when they upbraid one another they really can make it that they cannot do X, by making it that they cannot choose to do X.

That's what I meant by "subtle", before. It's not half so settled as it might seem on surface.

I don't think those two things are separable like that. What are you determining? How. In both 1 and 2 that is true.

When it comes to thinking, there's nothing that can stop the player from making that determination that isn't special in some way that can prevent it. Some spell, class/race ability or chemical potion, pheromones or what have you. Those can override the player determination in a specific way. A social skill has no such ability to force, so they cannot override.

When it comes to acting, there are more limitations. In addition to specific spells, abilities, etc., you also have physics and physical restraints. The player might determine that his PC walks away, but if he's bound in rope walking might be impossible. He might determine that his PC jumps the grand canyon on foot, but physics says he goes a X feet and then plunges downward, probably to his death. The player is far less likely to actually be able to act as he wishes than to think as he wishes.

When it comes to talking, it's in-between both of those things. Barring a silence spell, gag or something similar, the PC will be able to talk and will say whatever the player likes.

 

[clearstream]

There’s a lot of gymnastics there (and the previous post) trying to prove the distinction doesn’t exist. Fruitlessly, once again.

I imagine you skimmed it and didn't consider what I was saying. No umbrage.

But instead of refuting the increasingly odd arguments one by one, let me turn this around: instead of you constantly try to find an inconsistency in my definitions, let me ask you: how do you define the difference between DM and player authority over PC control? Is there a line? Or is it just wherever the DM decides in the moment?

I'm disappointed I could not make this clearer: I am not trying to find inconsistency in your definitions. Rather I am putting forward a theory of game play that must account for them. At the same time accounting for competing definitions.

The difference is simple,

• On rules and resolution, DM decides
• On player-character motivation, player decides

DM is supported in judging anything uncertain, even things that are ordinarily certain such as how a character acts. Game circumstances are infinitely diverse. There's no universal definition of what counts as challenging or consequential enough.

Game results can't impinge on player character motivation, but they can inform what might be roleplayed should the player choose. A result that informs roleplay can include consequences that don't impinge.

 

[clearstream]

The crunch is not identical. If at some point the cowed character decides that running in fear for his life is better than sitting in fear and waiting to be killed, he can do so. The tied up character has no such option.

My example is one of a character so cowed that they cannot run in fear for their life.

When it comes to thinking, there's nothing that can stop the player from making that determination that isn't special in some way that can prevent it. Some spell, class/race ability or chemical potion, pheromones or what have you. Those can override the player determination in a specific way. A social skill has no such ability to force, so they cannot override.

Panache uses an ability check. It can override. More generally, S>G exceptions are not excluded from arising within the scope of ability checks. (So any theory that would exclude them must be adjusted to tolerate them.)

When it comes to acting, there are more limitations. In addition to specific spells, abilities, etc., you also have physics and physical restraints. The player might determine that his PC walks away, but if he's bound in rope walking might be impossible. He might determine that his PC jumps the grand canyon on foot, but physics says he goes a X feet and then plunges downward, probably to his death. The player is far less likely to actually be able to act as he wishes than to think as he wishes.

When it comes to talking, it's in-between both of those things. Barring a silence spell, gag or something similar, the PC will be able to talk and will say whatever the player likes.

Let's not bar a silence spell or gag then. We can always arrange it so that the crunch of a situation is identical whether it is a physical or social ability check.

 

[HammerMan]

Well, I acknowledge that if you dismiss the roleplaying rule as mere guidance, but take other similarly written passages as rules, and distort the meanings of “general” and “specific”, and are willing to give the DM authority to arbitrarily rule that NPC attempts to influence PCs are automatically successful….with all of the above, I can see how you could twist RAW and ignore RAI to get there.

wow can you write that a bit more insulting?? We read the rules differently

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I imagine you skimmed it and didn't consider what I was saying. No umbrage.


I'm disappointed I could not make this clearer: I am not trying to find inconsistency in your definitions. Rather I am putting forward a theory of game play that must account for them. At the same time accounting for competing definitions.

The difference is simple,

• On rules and resolution, DM decides
• On player-character motivation, player decides

DM is supported in judging anything uncertain, even things that are ordinarily certain such as how a character acts. Game circumstances are infinitely diverse. There's no universal definition of what counts as challenging or consequential enough.

Game results can't impinge on player character motivation, but they can inform what might be roleplayed should the player choose. A result that informs roleplay can include consequences that don't impinge.

Yes!

Thread done?*

*as long as no one mentions the p185 roleplaying rule as something the DM should consider, we should be good. D’OH!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

When it comes to thinking, there's nothing that can stop the player from making that determination that isn't special in some way that can prevent it. Some spell, class/race ability or chemical potion, pheromones or what have you. Those can override the player determination in a specific way. A social skill has no such ability to force, so they cannot override.

When it comes to acting, there are more limitations. In addition to specific spells, abilities, etc., you also have physics and physical restraints. The player might determine that his PC walks away, but if he's bound in rope walking might be impossible. He might determine that his PC jumps the grand canyon on foot, but physics says he goes a X feet and then plunges downward, probably to his death. The player is far less likely to actually be able to act as he wishes than to think as he wishes.

When it comes to talking, it's in-between both of those things. Barring a silence spell, gag or something similar, the PC will be able to talk and will say whatever the player likes.

Why? Why can physical skill impede how you act but social skill cannot impede how you think? Mind you, I fully agree that this is a sensible way to run things, but it is a personal preference, not something actually written in the rules.

 

[HammerMan]

Thread done?*

to be fair this thread was done 50 pages ago...

 

[Aldarc]

Well, I acknowledge that if you dismiss the roleplaying rule as mere guidance, but take other similarly written passages as rules, and distort the meanings of “general” and “specific”, and are willing to give the DM authority to arbitrarily rule that NPC attempts to influence PCs are automatically successful….with all of the above, I can see how you could twist RAW and ignore RAI to get there.

The roleplaying rule? I feel like hardly anyone, including likely yourself, considered Page 185 as anything more than general guidance about roleplaying before until it somehow became a critical lynchpin of the game for the purposes of arguments in this thread. I have never once before this thread ever heard that snippet from Page 185 cited as a rule about roleplaying.

Page 185 has been cited before for other matters pertinent to the page, but the oldest citation of PHB "page 185" in regards to roleplaying - though not about this particular snippet - I have found appears to be me (as recent as Aug 2021) in regards to descriptive roleplaying being regarded as equally valid a method of roleplaying as actor stance roleplaying.

I'm suspicious that it would not have been cited earlier than that as a roleplaying rule on ENWorld in the seven years that this game has been out. (I will admit that it is possible that it has been cited earlier - I searched only for "185" - but that either someone who is ignoring me or that I have on ignore prevents me from seeing it.) But since this thread (30. Nov. 2021), it has formed the vast bulk of its subsequent citations. I can't help but get the impression that the Page 185 "rule" in question appears to have been willed into existence as a rule for the sole purposes of this thread.

Likewise, if it is a rule, critical or otherwise, for the play loop of 5e D&D, then I would expect that it to show up in the 5e SRD as a rule (possibly in a different form), but I will admit that I am having difficulty finding any mention of it in any form or phrasing.

Well, I acknowledge that if you dismiss the roleplaying rule as mere guidance, but take other similarly written passages as rules, and distort the meanings of “general” and “specific”, and are willing to give the DM authority to arbitrarily rule that NPC attempts to influence PCs are automatically successful….with all of the above, I can see how you could twist RAW and ignore RAI to get there.

If this is how you choose to respond to others who have different readings of the text than your own, then maybe you should either not respond or step away from the thread.

 

[clearstream]

The roleplaying rule? I feel like hardly anyone, including likely yourself, considered Page 185 as anything more than general guidance about roleplaying before until it somehow became a critical lynchpin of the game for the purposes of arguments in this thread. I have never once before this thread ever heard that snippet from Page 185 cited as a rule about roleplaying.

Page 185 has been cited before for other matters pertinent to the page, but the oldest citation of PHB "page 185" in regards to roleplaying - though not about this particular snippet - I have found appears to be me (as recent as Aug 2021) in regards to desriptive roleplaying being regarded as equally valid a method of roleplaying as actor stance roleplaying.

I'm suspicious that it would not have been cited earlier than that as a roleplaying rule on ENWorld in the seven years that this game has been out. (I will admit that it is possible that it has been cited earlier - I searched only for "185" - but that either someone who is ignoring me or that I have on ignore prevents me from seeing it.) But since this thread (30. Nov. 2021), it has formed the vast bulk of its subsequent citations. I can't help but get the impression that the Page 185 "rule" in question appears to have been willed into existence as a rule for the sole purposes of this thread.

Likewise, if it is a rule, critical or otherwise, for the play loop of 5e D&D, then I would expect that it to show up in the 5e SRD as a rule (possibly in a different form), but I will admit that I am having difficulty finding any mention of it in any form or phrasing.


If this is how you choose to respond to others who have different readings of the text than your own, then maybe you should either not respond or step away from the thread.

FWIW DMG 244 expressly characterises the PHB 185 section as a guideline.

 

[clearstream]

Yes!

Thread done?*

*as long as no one mentions the p185 roleplaying rule as something to DM should consider, we should be good. D’OH!

WTY!

You have noticed that my definition sustains 185, right? It divides roles as supported by the text. DM is master of rules. Player is master of their character. All one does to conform with what the text best supports is prevent the results of game mechanics from invalidating 185 unless they are S>G exceptions or set limits.

[Or a better way to put is is that when narrating the results, do so in the way that respects player agency.]