D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[loverdrive]

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."

I honestly don't see any tangible difference between goblin overpowering the PC and getting them into a chokehold, or scaring them enough to reconsider their actions.

It's not like I require the player to scare me to roll for Intimidation, I don't see why it must be any different on the other side of the screen.

And then there's another thing. English is far from being my first language, and I run a decent chunk of my games in English. Sometimes, I can't put into spoken words the exact thing that I picture in my head, and mechanics are a good shortcut for conveying what I mean.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

and what does any of that even mean? does it mean the player and I must have a stressfilled battle of wits and wills everytime our characters do? no thank you. I (and at least most people I know) want no more to do with that then larping combat.

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.

then why give monsters and NPCs sociol skills?

What's the DC here?

I would say that is up to the PC

What's the meaningful consequence of failure?

you fail to intimadate

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.

I mean you COULD, but we have skills and stats for a reason.

This is description, not task resolution.

the task is as much in nees of resolution as if my orc swings his axe and we need to know if and how well he hit the PC

The game mechanics for ability checks aren't designed to answer this question, only whether the task is successful or not.

so then why have social skills?

And that's up to the player.

no one has said the player doesn't have the ability to react.

 

[HammerMan]

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."

but then an ordenary goblin with no int skill and low cha CAN intimadate you if the DM is playing smart and knows what will set off the player... meaning it ISN"T anything to do with in game and is 100% out of game.

 

[D1Tremere]

While I discourage PvP fighting, I do use opposed skill checks between players for 2 reasons.
1: One of my jobs as DM is to arbitrate conflict.
2: Skill checks keep the interaction abstract and do the most to reduce real world disagreement.
No skill check completely removes player agency, but thay can and should restrict their options.
Example: Rogue tries to steal something without the Paladin knowing. If the Stealth check beats the Paladin's perception then they just dont see it happen. If the Rogue needs to Bluff the Paladin about it and beats their sense motive then they succeed. The Paladin player can choose to say they give the Rogue the benefit of the doubt or what have you, but the end result is that they don't blame the Rogue for steeling in game.
This to me is much better than just saying OK guys, derail the game for the next 20mins as you improve trying to one up each other.
There is a second option however, which is to not call for a role. So long as the players have already worked out how they see the situation and don't have any disagreements then no role is needed, and I don't need to arbitrate.

 

[HammerMan]

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.

the quaastion I have is IN GAME, can this orc be intimadating to your character. I do not care if I THE DM can describe something that will trigger a responce in the player... the player DM don't matter it is in game the quastion.

 

[payn]

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.

So, you just tell the players they are intimidated?

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.)

If the 20 + skill is enough, I mean people lose their crap when they see a mouse.

 

[Charlaquin]

and what does any of that even mean? does it mean the player and I must have a stressfilled battle of wits and wills everytime our characters do? no thank you. I (and at least most people I know) want no more to do with that then larping combat.

What on earth are you talking about?

then why give monsters and NPCs sociol skills?

Because they might be needed when they try to socially leverage other NPCs. And secondarily because a monster’s ability scores and proficiencies can inform the DM’s portrayal of that monster.

I would say that is up to the PC

you fail to intimadate

That’s just the status quo being maintained. What’s the consequence?

I mean you COULD, but we have skills and stats for a reason.

And you COULD roll a die to determine how intimidating the NPC is, but the rules lay out the roles of the players, the DM, and the dice for a reason.

the task is as much in nees of resolution as if my orc swings his axe and we need to know if and how well he hit the PC

No it isn’t, because in the case of swinging the axe, it is not the player’s role to determine the outcome of that action. In the case of intimidating the PC, it is.

so then why have social skills?

To resolve social actions with uncertain outcomes. It’s just that the outcome of an NPC attempting to socially leverage a PC is not uncertain.

no one has said the player doesn't have the ability to react.

Indeed, no one has.

 

[HammerMan]

Yall do realize this is a role playing GAME right? like I don't have to be able to climb a wall for my drow to do it, I don't have to be able to shoot a bow for my monster to, or throw a bolder...

sometimes I wonder if you guys throw rocks at each other to see if you hit?

I can even see saying "I don't use X skills or rules" but to outright claim that people who use the skills on the monsters from the book that WoTC printed are not following the rules is a weird flex... like "WHY PRINT SOCIAL SKILLS ON MONSTERS?"

 

[Charlaquin]

but then an ordenary goblin with no int skill and low cha CAN intimadate you if the DM is playing smart and knows what will set off the player...

It’s up to the player how their character reacts. Nothing stops a player from deciding that their character finds a given action intimidating even if they as a player don’t, and likewise nothing stops a player from deciding their character doesn’t find a given action intimidating, even if they as a player do.

meaning it ISN"T anything to do with in game and is 100% out of game.

It’s not game-mechanical, no. It’s roleplaying. Both are important parts of D&D.

 

[iserith]

and what does any of that even mean? does it mean the player and I must have a stressfilled battle of wits and wills everytime our characters do? no thank you. I (and at least most people I know) want no more to do with that then larping combat.


then why give monsters and NPCs sociol skills?


I would say that is up to the PC

you fail to intimadate

I mean you COULD, but we have skills and stats for a reason.


the task is as much in nees of resolution as if my orc swings his axe and we need to know if and how well he hit the PC

so then why have social skills?

no one has said the player doesn't have the ability to react.

We have ability checks for resolving tasks, not for resolving how you describe the environment.

As for why monster and NPCs have social skills, it probably serves two purposes: (1) It says something about the nature of the monster or NPC; and (2) It can be used to resolve tasks taken without reference to the PCs, if the DM needed to. Since the players decide what the character does, thinks, and says, there is no question as to whether the orc intimidates the PC - the result is whatever the player says it is. How intimidating the orc looks to a PC is a description of the environment (Part 1 of the play loop) and doesn't call for an ability check.

I also don't know what you're picturing when you say you and the player have to have a "stress-filled battle of wits." You describe how the orc looks. You ask the PC what they do in response. The player describes what they want to do. That's all. There's no battel of wits here or stress that I can see.