D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Fundamentally, you've made an assumption to start. That assumption is the underpinning of your argument. Remove it, and the argument falls apart. Epistemologically speaking, this removes the strength of your argument against the counter-argument -- both are using an assumption as foundational, just at different points in the argument. Yours is at the start, and builds a solid argument from that foundation. The other comes in later in the argument structure, but is just as sound when built there. You're pointing out that assumption as a flaw while ignoring your own foundational assumption.

No, I fully acknowledge that both arguments rely on an assumption. I am also arguing that the assumption that my position relies on creates less ambiguity throughout the text.

 

[HammerMan]

no they succeed in being persuasive, they don't succeed in every way they want. I can't say "I climb the tree, and the tree is cut down" I can say I climb the tree, and that is what my athletics check is for "can I climb the tree" (yes most of the time you just climb no roll but I need an example)
I am trying to put forward something, the dm still gets to decide what happens.

PLayer "I use cha deception to tell the bartender there is a fight out front so he goes to look."
DM looks at the roll the DC(most likelt insight/wisdom) and the check says if the Bartender knows he is lying or not, but that doesn't le tthe player declair the action "so he goes outside"

I got a better one, and it happened to me

I had a str based barbarian. I found a door barred. I asked how hard it would be to ripp the bar off to open the door. Becky told me not too hard a good athletics check could do it... so I rolled high, ripped it right off, and when I went to open the door it was still locked (both physical and magical) so I made my skill check and was strong enough to ripp off the bar, but I still couldn't open the door.

 

[Charlaquin]

That doesn't hold. The player does not decide that the monster shoves their character using its Athletics skill.

Being shoved by a monster is not a decision on the character’s part.

 

[HammerMan]

The goal of the NPC was to persuade the PC to do "the thing". Right? The roll was 23. If the PC doesn't then do "the thing" because the player determines they don't want to, how can you say the NPC was persuasive?

you have never said no to someone who was persuasive? you have never been persuased that someone was right then went and did something they didn't want?

 

[clearstream]

Only if you read ability (skill) checks as things that are “used” by characters “on” other characters to achieve goals. I do not. I read them as tools used by the DM to resolve uncertainty of actions. The skills in a monster’s stat block are meant to be used when the monster makes an ability check to which the skill applies. The DM calls for ability checks to be made when there is uncertainty in the outcome of an action. Since the outcome of an attempt to socially influence a PC is never uncertain in my reading, ability checks are never called for to resolve such actions.

We don't want to say that the monster attack is uncertain just because there is an attack roll, but rather there is an attack roll because it is uncertain. Similarly, we don't want to say that the character attack is uncertain just because there is an attack roll, but rather there is an attack roll because it is uncertain. If the character misses, the roll overruled what they decided to do.

Both cases end up being a DM call as to what is uncertain. Neither has better ground in granting player determination over what their character does. The player can't say - oh, the monster doesn't attack me. Nor can they say - oh, the monster doesn't try to intimidate me.

 

[clearstream]

Being shoved by a monster is not a decision on the character’s part.

Indeed yes, that is precisely my point. Read the post I am replying to.

Clarification - the player does not get to decide that their character is shoved or not shoved by the champion using its Athletics skill, even though moving 5 foot is something that their character will end up doing. Similarly, the player does not get to decide if the champion does or not intimidate their character using its Intimidate skill, even though being intimidated (consequences per exemplars in ability checks, and DMG) is something their character will end up doing.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I got a better one, and it happened to me

I had a str based barbarian. I found a door barred. I asked how hard it would be to ripp the bar off to open the door. Becky told me not too hard a good athletics check could do it... so I rolled high, ripped it right off, and when I went to open the door it was still locked (both physical and magical) so I made my skill check and was strong enough to ripp off the bar, but I still couldn't open the door.

Your goal was to rip off the bar. You succeeded. Any assumption that ripping off the bar would open the door was clearly faulty.

you have never said no to someone who was persuasive? you have never been persuased that someone was right then went and did something they didn't want?

We're talking about game mechanics. If the outcome of a Charisma(Persuasion) check does not result in the desired goal, it is a failure. In other words, the NPC was not persuasive because the PC did not do what they wanted.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, I fully acknowledge that both arguments rely on an assumption. I am also arguing that the assumption that my position relies on creates less ambiguity throughout the text.

If I start with the assumption that what I say goes, then there's very little ambiguity in the remaining text -- just ask me. That your assumption aides your argument should be assumed. I don't think this shows increase strength in your argument.

Keep in mind that I agree with the end state that you're arguing for. I just don't agree that the rules mandate this end state.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I mean I don’t agree with the statement that “the general assumption is the the players can use their PCs skills to get the things they want,” because I don’t view ability (skill) checks as player abilities but as DM tools for resolving actions (ones that the smart play is to try and avoid the need to use).

This very neatly gets to a deeper design-philosophy question that might be worth looking at, which goes something like this:

If a mechanic is listed on the character sheet and thus is player-side, does - or should - that give the player control over when-how that mechanic is invoked?

Corollary question: should mechanics that are not under the player's control appear on the character sheet at all?

A character's combat stats and abilities are all listed on the character sheet and (with rare exceptions) the player has full control over when and how those mechanics are invoked.

Physical skills - athletics, climbing, etc. - are similar, in that their use is almost always invoked by player choice (even though that choice may be forced sometimes, it's still a choice in the end). Exploraiton skills - search, move silently, etc. - are also fully under the player's control as to when and how they are invoked.

Inspiration and other meta-currencies, horrible though they are, also fall into this player-controlled category.

And for all of the above, in all cases the success-fail result is quickly obvious: you missed your shot, you climbed out of the pit, you crept past the guard, etc.

But for things like social skills, if the player doesn't get to choose when and how to invoke them (i.e. call for a roll) and-or can't always tell what the results are if any, then why are they even shown on the character sheet? I ask this because if they're on the character sheet it's very easy for a player to assume they're invokable at the player's choice just like all the other player-side mechanics.

Another offender here is saving throws. Despite the game pushing these player-side even back in 1e days, I've always held that saving throw mechanics should be DM-side only. A player usually has no choice as to when or how this mechanic is invoked; the player just rolls the save when forced to by the game state, and the success-fail state isn't always immediately obvious in any case (though often it is).

 

[Charlaquin]

We don't want to say that the monster attack is uncertain just because there is an attack roll, but rather there is an attack roll because it is uncertain. Similarly, we don't want to say that the character attack is uncertain just because there is an attack roll, but rather there is an attack roll because it is uncertain. If the character misses, the roll overruled what they decided to do.

That’s the outcome, not a decision. The player decides what their character does. The DM decides what NPCs do, and determines the outcomes of those actions, employing dice if necessary to resolve uncertainty. The outcome of an attack roll is uncertain. The outcome of an attempt to make the PC decide to do something is not.

Both cases end up being a DM call as to what is uncertain. Neither has better ground in granting player determination over what their character does. The player can't say - oh, the monster doesn't attack me. Nor can they say - oh, the monster doesn't try to intimidate me.

This is a false equivalence.