D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Swarmkeeper]

Action declaration =/= adjudication

oh well. 50 more pages?

 

[Aldarc]

Exactly! That is the same argument, based on the same passage of the text.

But I would also like to note per the text that the GM is permitted to tell the player how their character feels about grappled since players can decide what their character thinks, acts, and does, but not how their character feels, which is subject to GM discretion per RAW.

Action declaration =/= adjudication

oh well. 50 more pages?

Action declaration: "My character tries to oppose being Intimidated by the NPC."

 

[clearstream]

That's incredibly unrealistic. People in real life can and very often do change their minds when cowed, so it makes sense that characters can as well. Short of the supernatural or an extraordinary ability like Panache, you cannot encounter that example. Someone might choose not to run in fear for their life, but there's nothing preventing them other than themselves.

How closely mental constraints can emulate physical might depend on one's metaphysical model for RPG. Is it

• Player thoughts | > character acts OR
• Player thoughts | > character thoughts > character acts

The pipe symbol represents the real-world | game-world separation. There's good reason to suppose it is the second option. Exceptions like the spell suggestion can't be affecting player thoughts, and a natural way of picturing their workings is that they control character thoughts. Equally, PHB 185 seems to state outright that characters have thoughts.

So if character thoughts are a property of the game-world, and given it's all imaginary, I really do think one can make a decent case for them to be generally exposed to game mechanics. We might model them the same way as non-player character thoughts (substituting DM for player), except for the crucial fact that they are separated from non-player character thoughts by PHB 185 and DMG 244.

Panache is what in 3e would be an extraordinary ability, "At 9th level, your charm becomes extraordinarily beguiling." It can accomplish things that are beyond what the ordinary skill can accomplish. It may use the ability check as the vehicle, but it is not your typical ability check. This is not an example of what ability checks as written in the PHB can accomplish.

My feelings on Panache are more that it shows an S>G exception that is tied to an ability check. Supporting a belief that S>G exceptions can indeed apply to ability checks (if we happened to decide they couldn't, which isn't supported anyway.)

 

[clearstream]

Action declaration =/= adjudication

oh well. 50 more pages?

An incurable optimist, I see!

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Good post. Thoughtful reply will have to wait for later.

 

[Maxperson]

How closely mental constraints can emulate physical might depend on one's metaphysical model for RPG. Is it

• Player thoughts | > character acts OR
• Player thoughts | > character thoughts > character acts

The pipe symbol represents the real-world | game-world separation. There's good reason to suppose it is the second option. Exceptions like the spell suggestion can't be affecting player thoughts, and a natural way of picturing their workings is that they control character thoughts. Equally, PHB 185 seems to state outright that characters have thoughts.

So if character thoughts are a property of the game-world, and given it's all imaginary, I really do think one can make a decent case for them to be generally exposed to game mechanics. We might model them the same way as non-player character thoughts (substituting DM for player), except for the crucial fact that they are separated from non-player character thoughts by PHB 185 and DMG 244.

Yes, it's the second. Player thoughts are greater than character thoughts which are greater than character physical actions. There's literally nothing in the ability check section that specifically creates an exception or contradiction to page 185, though, with regard to social skills. You can find examples that create specific exceptions or contradictions to page 185 that are physical, though.

My feelings on Panache are more that it shows an S>G exception that is tied to an ability check. Supporting a belief that S>G exceptions can indeed apply to ability checks (if we happened to decide they couldn't, which isn't supported anyway.)

It literally causes the charmed condition. That effect is far beyond what skills as written can accomplish. Is it an example of specific beats general? Absolutely. It's the perfect example of it. It SPECIFICALLY creates an exception or contradiction to page 185. Unlike anything in the ability check section of the PHB.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, it's the second. Player thoughts are greater than character thoughts which are greater than character physical actions.

Player thoughts motivate character thoughts which motivate character actions, might be a way of putting it?

There's literally nothing in the ability check section that specifically creates an exception or contradiction to page 185, though, with regard to social skills. You can find examples that create specific exceptions or contradictions to page 185 that are physical, though.

As you know, we disagree on that, but the general point is there is no limitation on S>G. It can apply anywhere. I mean, that's literally what creating exceptions is about: doing it differently from how the game normally works.

 

[Maxperson]

Player thoughts motivate character thoughts which motivate character actions, might be a way of putting it?


As you know, we disagree on that, but the general point is there is no limitation on S>G. It can apply anywhere. I mean, that's literally what creating exceptions is about: doing it differently from how the game normally works.

There is one limitation on specific beats general. And that's that you cannot achieve it through implication, and it's implication which is the foundation for your position. Implication is by definition non-specific, which is why it's only implied.

Specific beats general requires actual specificity in creating the exception. It doesn't have to say, "This rule creates an exception to that one," but it does have to create a specific exception, such as granting the ability to fly to a non-flying creature.

 

[clearstream]

There is one limitation on specific beats general. And that's that you cannot achieve it through implication, and it's implication which is the foundation for your position. Implication is by definition non-specific, which is why it's only implied.

To my reading, it is specific. I know you do not think so.

Specific beats general requires actual specificity in creating the exception. It doesn't have to say, "This rule creates an exception to that one," but it does have to create a specific exception, such as granting the ability to fly to a non-flying creature.

If we can interpret the rules in one way that sustains the possibility of exceptions, and another way that excludes that possibility, we must prefer the former.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Here's the longer response I promised earlier...

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

I did read it, in fact read many parts of it several times, trying to get my head around what you are saying.

And then I wrote a bunch of paragraphs of response.

But...I'm exhausted. With this thread.