D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[loverdrive]

I'm totally fine with using social skills on PCs. When it comes to D&D specifically, I just let the player choose the DC.

 

[Charlaquin]

and I agree. the dice (and stat and skill prof) determine how intimadating something is, not how well I describe it, or how well I know what would trigger a laugh or a jump from my buddy across the table.

How intimidating something is, is a qualitative evaluation, not a quantitative one. Better, in my view, to simply focus on what the NPC does and allow the player to assess its intimidating qualities based on whatever criteria they feel is appropriate for their character, rather than using a dice roll and modifiers to try and quantify the intimidating-ness of the action in some objective way.

So I AM using the dice with clarity and consistency... there is a question "How intimadating is the orc?" the answer is 1d20+cha+intim skill +/- any circumstances...

That’s not consistent with how the dice are typically used though. They are used to determine the outcomes of actions that are uncertain, not to answer questions about qualitative elements of actions. You can certainly use them that way if you want to, but again, I personally think the game benefits from the consistency of dice rolls always being used to determine the outcomes of actions that are uncertain.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In my view, if the DM wants Monster X to be intimidating, the DM should makes sure that the players find Monster X to be intimidating.

In theory a goblin could roll a natural 20 on an Intimidation check against a party of level 10 characters. Should the players be obliged to act intimidated? (My answer: not in any RPG I'm interested in playing.)

 

[Bolares]

This topic gets re-hashed a lot, it seems, and in general my stance is that social skills don't 'work' on other PCs.

But I was just reading some of the early materials for Stonetop, a kickstarted PoA game, and came across this:

View attachment 147502

I like that a lot. It leaves the target PC fully in control of the player, but also provides a framework for Cha skills to 'work' on other PCs.

I don't have an elegant way to map that to 5e rules, but thought I'd throw it out there as a middle ground between the two sides of the debate.

EDIT: Try again on the attachment....
View attachment 147505

This seems okay at first glance... BUT, some people my have social anxiety, or not be confident enough around the people with whom they are playing, so they may fell pressured to say yes even when they want to say no so I'd first check in with the table at session 0, or privatelly if this kind of rule is okay to play in the game.

 

[loverdrive]

In theory a goblin could roll a natural 20 on an Intimidation check against a party of level 10 characters

Which doesn't mean jack. Ability checks do not autosuceed on nat. 20.

Now, if the goblin somehow managed to beat, say, DC 30.... That's another matter entirely.

Should the players be obliged to act intimidated?

The players? No, of course. Their characters? Sure.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This seems okay at first glance... BUT, some people my have social anxiety, or not be confident enough around the people with whom they are playing, so they may fell pressured to say yes even when they want to say no

Sure, but that's an issue regardless of resolution mechanics (or lack thereof), no?

so I'd first check in with the table at session 0, or privatelly if this kind of rule is okay to play in the game.

Again, yes, but you should do that regardless of resolution mechanics.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Which doesn't mean jack. Ability checks do not autosuceed on nat. 20.

Now, if the goblin somehow managed to beat, say, DC 30.... That's another matter entirely.


The players? No, of course. Their characters? Sure.

In my mind there's not really a qualitative difference (unless, as you suggested, the player has set their own DC).

If the DM really wants my 10th level berserker barbarian to be intimidated by a goblin, the DM better have the goblin do something that makes me, the player, think, "Oh, wait a sec...that's no ordinary goblin."

 

[Bolares]

Sure, but that's an issue regardless of resolution mechanics (or lack thereof), no?



Again, yes, but you should do that regardless of resolution mechanics.

You absolutelly should. About the mechanic, how I feel about it was expressed in the first few words I wrote . This seems okay at first glance.

 

[iserith]

it is only supported or not based on your choice or reading of what is uncertain.

If you're asking the question of "Does the orc intimidate the PC?", there is no roll because the player decides. There's no uncertainty here. Whatever the player says goes.

If you're asking the question of "How intimidating is the orc?" you're outsourcing the DM's role of describing the environment to the dice in a way that rules do not appear to envision. What's the DC here? What's the meaningful consequence of failure? This can't be an ability check without those prerequisites in place. So basically you may as well flip a coin - heads, the orc looks ferocious, tails, it doesn't. This is description, not task resolution. The game mechanics for ability checks aren't designed to answer this question, only whether the task is successful or not. And that's up to the player.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

The issue (or question) came up in almost every single campaign I ran. I think the most notable example is when a player is being a bit cryptic about his past and another one ask a question that leads to an insight roll (in D&D). With NPCs, as I think most people do it, the result on their roll is the dominating factor is what I will tell them they perceive. When it concerns another player, I ask them to roll an insight check and then turn to the target player and ask them to interpret the roll. Most experienced players understand that it's a balance between what they want to share and the result that was thrown. For new players, it's a good moment to go back over what insight can reveal.