D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Ovinomancer]

All that is why I started the thread, with that (eventually fixed) reference from Stonetop: it’s a resolution mechanic that allows the targeted player to completely opt out of “social PvP” if they so desire, while also dangling a carrot to engage, on their own terms.

(Which, upon further reflection, is functionally equivalent to @iserith’s pvp resolution mechanic, with a bit more structure.)

Did you read the post, or are you responding only to the thread title?

It doesn't really help much that Stonetop is a Powered by the Apocalypse game, and, as such, has some rather large structural and conceptual differences in what play looks like from 5e. Chiefly, this kind of move in a PbtA game doesn't impact player agency nearly as much as it does in a 5e game. In 5e, the only real agency the player has is over the PC's thoughts and declared actions (although even this is breached often enough). In PbtA games, the player has a broader agency over more things and doesn't need to jealously protect the same agencies that the 5e player does. For example, I think that move is brilliant within Stonetop, as it will drive the expected kinds of conflict and play the game is aimed towards, and not at all good for 5e where it will not.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

All that is why I started the thread, with that (eventually fixed) reference from Stonetop: it’s a resolution mechanic that allows the targeted player to completely opt out of “social PvP” if they so desire, while also dangling a carrot to engage, on their own terms.

(Which, upon further reflection, is functionally equivalent to @iserith’s pvp resolution mechanic, with a bit more structure.)

Did you read the post, or are you responding only to the thread title?

I did read the OP before posting. I don't completely understand that mechanic, but fundamentally, as I stated, using social skills of any kind against another player (or NPC) should not be allowed. And yes, I said NPC's as well, since if NPC's can be targeted by players, then players can be targeted by NPC's. That has also been pointed out already.

I have a DM that treats Persuasion as the equivalent of Mind Control, which is how CR does it. Even the most ludicrous suggestion will be obeyed by an NPC if the player rolls high enough. Two guards, elite professionals, were guarding a prisoner. Bard rolls a 27 and says "I want to see the prisoner". DM says OK. Now, in my world, the first part of that Stonetop mechanic would kick in, as there is zero chance of that ever happening, But as soon as you even allow the thinnest of wedges, with that 2nd part of the mechanic (like I said, I don't know what XP represents), a player will say "but I rolled super high, you must do what I say, otherwise it is no fun".

 

[Bill Zebub]

First, let me start by saying that I do not let social skills affect PCs in my 5e games. This is, however, because I make it explicit as a table rule that they do not. The 5e rules actually make no case either way.

There is no difference between the combat rules and social skill rules how you're making it. That they're of different resolutions is trivial to the point -- yes, combat rules are have a higher resolution than non-combat rules in 5e. This isn't sufficient to say that there are categorically different, however. They both are tools for the GM in situations where the GM determines that there is uncertainty and chooses to use the system to resolve that uncertainty. The difference isn't one of kind, but degree. The combat rules are more detailed and provide a clearer context for what it to be usually considered uncertain and how that uncertainty is resolved. They aren't different from social rules in the critical sense for this discussion -- they resolve uncertainty after the GM has made that determination and chosen to use those mechanics to resolve it.

While I agree, it would not be a violation of the basic play loop or the authority of the GM to do so. 5e puts almost no constraints on the GM's authority to determine outcomes however the GM wishes and leaves such constraints to the social contract at the table (and, generally, the the social zeitgeist of the hobby). It's not actually a different thing, though, as far as the system is concerned. Need to be careful about importing meta-concerns into an evaluation of what rules are.

Technically, the RoI for everything on you sheet is subject to GM whim. There's no guarantee that anything you've chosen will be a) honored or b) relevant. Again, 5e leaves such things to the table social contract -- it does not choose to define it in any way.


The case for social skills being applied to PC is about as strong as the case for them not being applicable. Both rest on flimsy assumptions (the one for not-applicable starts earlier in assuming the description for roleplaying is a general rule to start, but also that exceptions must be clearly stated for them to be actual exceptions. In reality, the Charm Person spell is not clear it's an exception exactly as the Persuasion skill is not clear it's an exception. To be logical, you'd have to either include or exclude both -- or make a conscious choice to alter the rules.

Yeah…no. I usually highly respect your opinions but in this case I disagree. There are two major differences between general task resolution and combat, at least in my mind:

1) Once combat is entered, the rules provide very detailed specific rules for both success condition and consequences, which means there is no success/failure/uncertainty state: it is defined. So that play loop does not apply here. Certainly the DM has the option of not switching to combat mode and calling for Initiative, say in the case of assassinating a sleeping NPC, but then we aren’t formally in combat.

2) More broadly, the play loop we have been describing is the general case, whereas combat is the specific case. And, as we all know, specific supersedes general.

And I guess…

3) Ultimately the DM can change any rules, but if we are straying into that territory then there is no point in debating what the rules are, only what we think they should be.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I did read the OP before posting. I don't completely understand that mechanic, but fundamentally, as I stated, using social skills of any kind against another player (or NPC) should not be allowed. And yes, I said NPC's as well, since if NPC's can be targeted by players, then players can be targeted by NPC's. That has also been pointed out already.

I have a DM that treats Persuasion as the equivalent of Mind Control, which is how CR does it. Even the most ludicrous suggestion will be obeyed by an NPC if the player rolls high enough. Two guards, elite professionals, were guarding a prisoner. Bard rolls a 27 and says "I want to see the prisoner". DM says OK. Now, in my world, the first part of that Stonetop mechanic would kick in, as there is zero chance of that ever happening, But as soon as you even allow the thinnest of wedges, with that 2nd part of the mechanic (like I said, I don't know what XP represents), a player will say "but I rolled super high, you must do what I say, otherwise it is no fun".

I agree with you about all of that...

...AND if somebody says, "Is there any way I can persuade you we should keep the McGuffin rather than return it?" And the other player says, "Tell you what, if you roll Cha (Persuasion) and get 30+ and I'll do it...."

I see nothing wrong with that, and wouldn't call that PvP.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It doesn't really help much that Stonetop is a Powered by the Apocalypse game, and, as such, has some rather large structural and conceptual differences in what play looks like from 5e. Chiefly, this kind of move in a PbtA game doesn't impact player agency nearly as much as it does in a 5e game. In 5e, the only real agency the player has is over the PC's thoughts and declared actions (although even this is breached often enough). In PbtA games, the player has a broader agency over more things and doesn't need to jealously protect the same agencies that the 5e player does. For example, I think that move is brilliant within Stonetop, as it will drive the expected kinds of conflict and play the game is aimed towards, and not at all good for 5e where it will not.

Yeah, I happily admit the systems are different and have different expectations, and neither the rule nor the philosophy maps perfectly. My default stance is that social skills can't be 'used' against PCs. I was just offering the Stonetop example as a kind of olive branch or compromise for people who think that social skills can be used against PCs, and should dictate behavior.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah…no. I usually highly respect your opinions but in this case I disagree. There are two major differences between general task resolution and combat, at least in my mind:

1) Once combat is entered, the rules provide very detailed specific rules for both success condition and consequences, which means there is no success/failure/uncertainty state: it is defined
That play loop does not apply here. Certainly the DM has the option of not switching to combat mode and calling for Initiative, say in the case of assassinating a sleeping NPC, but then we aren’t formally in combat.

2) More broadly, the play loop we have been describing is the general case, whereas combat is the specific case. And, as we all know, specific supersedes general.

And I guess…

3) Ultimately the DM can change any rules, but if we are straying into that territory then there is no point in debating what the rules are, only what we think they should be.

Again, you are confusing the resolution of the rules -- the pixel count if you will -- with a difference in kind. Step back a bit -- the GM has the party facing off against some set of foes. Here the normal loop applies -- the GM can determine if this is successful, or not successful, or if it's uncertain. Examples of autosuccess would be a 20th level party against a single CR0 rat -- no need to engage, GM perfectly okay to determine "rat dead, move on." Example of auto-failure would be 1st level party against Orcus -- don't roll, you die (or worse). The range for uncertainty is assumed wide here, but it need not be. The GM actually has the authority to determine auto-success/failure for any potential conflict. The social contract typically directs otherwise, but the rules do not.

So, then in the uncertainty case, we're still in the same place as for other things, but the detail level of the resolution process is higher. It's not a single check (or a few) but rather another process. In the end, the GM still determines the outcome, and can, in fact, exert control over the outcome at any point during the process. It's not necessary for the GM to run things to a specific end point -- they can interrupt at any point.

As for your 3) -- I will typically not lean on Rule Zero in discussion of games and how they play. If I do, I will be explicit about it. I find it best, when discussing rules, to not go for a "do whatever you want, because that's in the rules" explanation.

 

[Lyxen]

The case for social skills being applied to PC is about as strong as the case for them not being applicable.

I globally agree with your post, just wanted to add that in addition to the "applicable or not", there is also the question, both for PCs and NPCs, what does "applying them" mean. For NPCs, clearly there are some rules about attitude change, but beyond that, it's a very open question as well.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I globally agree with your post, just wanted to add that in addition to the "applicable or not", there is also the question, both for PCs and NPCs, what does "applying them" mean. For NPCs, clearly there are some rules about attitude change, but beyond that, it's a very open question as well.

I'd say that 5e has rather robust rules for how these skills apply to NPCs. People seem to just ignore them, though. It's weird.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Again, you are confusing the resolution of the rules -- the pixel count if you will -- with a difference in kind. Step back a bit -- the GM has the party facing off against some set of foes. Here the normal loop applies -- the GM can determine if this is successful, or not successful, or if it's uncertain. Examples of autosuccess would be a 20th level party against a single CR0 rat -- no need to engage, GM perfectly okay to determine "rat dead, move on." Example of auto-failure would be 1st level party against Orcus -- don't roll, you die (or worse). The range for uncertainty is assumed wide here, but it need not be. The GM actually has the authority to determine auto-success/failure for any potential conflict. The social contract typically directs otherwise, but the rules do not.

So, then in the uncertainty case, we're still in the same place as for other things, but the detail level of the resolution process is higher. It's not a single check (or a few) but rather another process. In the end, the GM still determines the outcome, and can, in fact, exert control over the outcome at any point during the process. It's not necessary for the GM to run things to a specific end point -- they can interrupt at any point.

As for your 3) -- I will typically not lean on Rule Zero in discussion of games and how they play. If I do, I will be explicit about it. I find it best, when discussing rules, to not go for a "do whatever you want, because that's in the rules" explanation.

I think our disagreement is on a very minor point. I agree that the DM can just rule (and hopefully narrate colorfully) the party losing to Orcus without using combat rules. But if the DM does call for initiative and formally enter combat, then in my view it's defying RAI to start mixing that with declaring hits and misses without rolling dice.

I think one can make an argument (that honestly I find a little disingenuous and/or arguing for argument's sake) that nowhere do the rulebooks explicitly say the DM can't or shouldn't do that. But in my mind it's an obvious case of specific superseding general.

 

[Bill Zebub]

For NPCs, clearly there are some rules about attitude change,

No, there are not. There is only advice to the players on how the DM might decide to improvise, possibly using dice rolls, but there aren't rules. There is no "Attitude" score or "+1 to Attitude if you succeed against a DC of 15" or anything like that.