D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

When a character attacks a foe, it is uncertain whether they will hit. The player doesn't get to decide that they hit. The outcome is uncertain because there is a mechanic that governs it that includes uncertainty. When a foe attacks back, the player doesn't get to decide that they do not get hit.

But they do get to decide what actions they take after it has been resolved whether or not they get hit, right? (With some special exceptions.). I can swear, laugh, cry, run away, attack back, recite a poem, sneeze...anything I want, right? If the attack hits, the rules specify my loss of hit points, but subsequent action declarations are still in my control.

So what are the actual changes in game state that occur, according to the rules, if the orc "makes an Intimidation check" (even though that's not a thing in 5e) and the DM declares he succeeds?

And if there aren't any, why are we debating this? What is achieved by attaching a dice roll to that orc's action declaration?

And if the follow-up question is, "What is achieved by attaching a dice roll to the player's action declaration, when he tries to intimidate the orc?" the answer is "Because the DM, although totally empowered to adjudicate by dice-less fiat, decides the outcome is uncertain and wants to leave it to RNG."

 

[Mordhau]

If the player wants to roll intimidate I would be asking them both how and what they want to achieve. The last part is necessary to determine success of failure - do you want the jailer to give you his keys or do you want to make him run away?

That's where it gets difficult in reverse. The NPCs wants to roll a die to intimidate the PC in order to do something specific. This doesn't really work. It's one thing to tell a Player their character is scared. It's another thing to tell them that because they're scared they're going to give up a specific bit of information.

Some games handle this in specific ways. You might be given an XP bonus if you do comply - but don't have to. You may have some kind of penalty. In Forbidden lands you can either comply or enter combat. In exalted 3rd edition or A Song of Ice and Fire, you have to comply unless you are willing to spend a point of metacurrency.

5e has none of this. To all intents and purposes it seems no thought has been given to this at all.

 

[Bill Zebub]

5e has none of this. To all intents and purposes it seems no thought has been given to this at all.

I disagree that "no thought has been given". 5e intentionally leaves it to the player to decide for themselves, when there's no specific rule otherwise.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's where it gets difficult in reverse. The NPCs wants to roll a die to intimidate the PC in order to do something specific. This doesn't really work. It's one thing to tell a Player their character is scared. It's another thing to tell them that because they're scared they're going to give up a specific bit of information.

I mean it works just fine. You just explained how it would work. It's just that most players would find it really unfun, so the GMs generally don't do this.

Not that I think you always necessarily need to specify the outcome beyond 'I want to scare them.' If the player does that to an NPC, then a successful check merely indicates that the NPC is scared of the PC and the GM makes a good faith effort to take that into account in the NPC's behaviour. I don't really see why the same couldn't work in reverse, beyond some people not liking it.

 

[clearstream]

But they do get to decide what actions they take after it has been resolved whether or not they get hit, right? (With some special exceptions.). I can swear, laugh, cry, run away, attack back, recite a poem, sneeze...anything I want, right? If the attack hits, the rules specify my loss of hit points, but subsequent action declarations are still in my control.

Let's take the champion possible foe from the monster manual. It has Athletics +9 and Intimidation +5. I believe it would be uncontroversial to say that the champion can make an ability check against Athletics to shove a character moving it 5 feet away. Moving 5 feet is something the character does albeit involuntarily. That is an exception to the player deciding what the character does. The character did move 5 feet, even though the player did not decide that the character did move 5 feet.

So what are the actual changes in game state that occur, according to the rules, if the orc "makes an Intimidation check" (even though that's not a thing in 5e) and the DM declares he succeeds?

And if there aren't any, why are we debating this? What is achieved by attaching a dice roll to that orc's action declaration?

The champion also has Intimidation. Under charisma it specifies that a creature will need to give up information, back down, or reconsider a decision. I take your objection to amount to believing that the consequence of the mechanic is insufficiently specified, putting it in a special class. I'm saying that is perfectly well specified. It's an RPG, so it is anticipated that players will role-play just as much as it is anticipated that they will be shoved 5 feet.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

If the player wants to roll intimidate I would be asking them both how and what they want to achieve. The last part is necessary to determine success of failure - do you want the jailer to give you his keys or do you want to make him run away?

The bold part is just not how 5e is laid out. The player doesn't want to roll Intimidate. The player wants to achieve the goal (in this case, intimidating the NPC in order to get them to do X, Y, Z). That's why, as you indicate, it is important for the player to be reasonably specific in their approach and goal. That way, the DM can grant them auto-success (an ideal state for the player and PC), auto-failure (uh-oh, something else must be going on here that is preventing this from working at all), OR the DM asks for an ability check roll if the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

The way I run the roll as DM is as follows (something I didn't inherently grasp from the rules, but learned here at Enworld):

I tell the player the DC of their stated approach and goal
I give the stakes - what will happen on a success and what will happen on a failure​

I let the player decide if they still want to go through with the action (they almost always do) - this simulates the PC having some sense regarding the difficulty of what they are about to attempt in the game world​

That's where it gets difficult in reverse. The NPCs wants to roll a die to intimidate the PC in order to do something specific.

Similarly, I would say the NPC doesn't even know dice exist - they don't want to roll anything. The NPC wants to achieve their goal and their intimidating actions and/or language are the manner in which they are trying to achieve it.

This doesn't really work. It's one thing to tell a Player their character is scared.
It's another thing to tell them that because they're scared they're going to give up a specific bit of information.

Agree that it doesn't really work. Disagree that you can tell the Player that their character is scared, period. Unless you are describing the Frightened condition caused by some NPC ability which usually (always?) comes with a failed save, the Player would decide how the character reacts to an attempted intimidation.

Some games handle this in specific ways. You might be given an XP bonus if you do comply - but don't have to. You may have some kind of penalty. In Forbidden lands you can either comply or enter combat. In exalted 3rd edition or A Song of Ice and Fire, you have to apply unless you are willing to spend a point of metacurrency.

5e has none of this. To all intents and purposes it seems no thought has been given to this at all.

@Bill Zebub covered this succinctly above.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Let's take the champion possible foe from the monster manual. It has Athletics +9 and Intimidation +5. I believe it would be uncontroversial to say that the champion can make an ability check against Athletics to shove a character moving it 5 feet away. Moving 5 feet is something the character does albeit involuntarily. That is an exception to the player deciding what the character does. The character did move 5 feet, even though the player did not decide that the character did move 5 feet.

Nod. This is a clearly stated case of a combat option: Shove. Effects apply.

The champion also has Intimidation. Under charisma it specifies that a creature will need to give up information, back down, or reconsider a decision. I take your objection to amount to believing that the consequence of the mechanic is insufficiently specified, putting it in a special class. I'm saying that is perfectly well specified. It's an RPG, so it is anticipated that players will role-play just as much as it is anticipated that they will be shoved 5 feet.

One good approach for a DM would be to telegraph that this champion is intimidating. Perhaps the first time the characters see the champion, they are barking at some other NPCs who essentially back away, turn tail, say "whatever you want" in a wobbly voice, etc. Then they understand what the champion is like before interreacting, which they can use to better inform how they wish to roleplay.

I mean, some players will simply not let their PC be intimidated which might mean they themselves get aggressive or that they simply approach with caution but do not give in. Others will lean into a flaw or personality trait and have their PC act timid or worried or scared. It's probable that many players will have their PC react in a way to try to earn Inspiration. Regardless, it is highly likely they'll react in a way that will be fun for them and for the table.

I see you want (or are at least exploring the argument that wants) NPC combat and social interaction effects to be consistent and parallel. One could run it that way and have fun with it, but the baseline expectation in 5e is that the pillars simply operate differently. With that in mind, the DM should leave roleplaying of the PCs in the hands of the players as has been quoted extensively in this thread (PHB p185).

 

[Mordhau]

The bold part is just not how 5e is laid out. The player doesn't want to roll Intimidate. The player wants to achieve the goal (in this case, intimidating the NPC in order to get them to do X, Y, Z). That's why, as you indicate, it is important for the player to be reasonably specific in their approach and goal. That way, the DM can grant them auto-success (an ideal state for the player and PC), auto-failure (uh-oh, something else must be going on here that is preventing this from working at all), OR the DM asks for an ability check roll if the outcome is uncertain and there is a meaningful consequence for failure.

The way I run the roll as DM is as follows (something I didn't inherently grasp from the rules, but learned here at Enworld):

I tell the player the DC of their stated approach and goal​

I give the stakes - what will happen on a success and what will happen on a failure​

I let the player decide if they still want to go through with the action (they almost always do) - this simulates the PC having some sense regarding the difficulty of what they are about to attempt in the game world​

Similarly, I would say the NPC doesn't even know dice exist - they don't want to roll anything. The NPC wants to achieve their goal and their intimidating actions and/or language are the manner in which they are trying to achieve it.


Agree that it doesn't really work. Disagree that you can tell the Player that their character is scared, period. Unless you are describing the Frightened condition caused by some NPC ability which usually (always?) comes with a failed save, the Player would decide how the character reacts to an attempted intimidation.


@Bill Zebub covered this succinctly above.

That's a lot of hairs to split to unpack what I said and basically repeat it back to me.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That's a lot of hairs to split to unpack what I said and basically repeat it back to me.

Then perhaps what you said was unclear to me and so I clarified - as much for myself as for those reading along.

I'm glad, in the end, that we agree.

 

[clearstream]

Again, though, the rules for Charm Person...the change in game state the results from the spell's use...are at least specified, if subject to interpretation. (And even then, you picked one of the most ambiguous and confusing examples in the game.)

Nowhere do the rules specify what happens to the game state if you try to Intimidate somebody.

In the section on ability checks, it gives three cases of what can happen if you try to intimidate somebody.

I'll also add that considering how mild charm spells are, constraining behavior based on Cha skills would be making Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception essentially equal to 1st level spells. It's the same argument I have against using Insight as a lie detector.

My contention is that game mechanics are a general and powerful exception to player determination over how their character thinks, acts and talks. Thus, for me this (game balance) is the more compelling line to take, but I think you don't intend to make an argument that they shouldn't be played this way because they would be imbalanced. Or at least, that you don't intend to abandon your other argument.

There's no reason to resolve the balance argument, seeing as I think that even were it resolved and you were comfortable with balance, you would still resort to your 'determining' argument. Does that sound right? Or are you prepared to concede on the determining argument if only the mechanical balance is shown to be good?