D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

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.

One assumption allows us to know what text is rules and what text is not. The other assumption gives us no such clarity. I think it’s clear that the former is a more sound assumption about the intent of a rule book.

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.

I’m not arguing the rules mandate this end state. That would be impossible, since the rules say to ignore them if you don’t like them. What I am arguing is that there is not support in the rules for NPCs “using sicial skills against” PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

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


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).

I agree with this.

My point is that the players - and the game itself - should in turn leave the roleplaying of the NPCs in the hands of the DM. The presence of social skills on the player-side character sheets strongly fights against this, however, as if it's on the character sheet (and further, if players have invested resources into those skills) there's a quite reasonable expectation that those skills will be made meaningful somehow. The problem is, making those skills meaningful forces the DM - even if by her own choice - to give up her autonomy in how to roleplay her NPCs.

Get rid of player-side social skills and this conflict goes away.

 

[Charlaquin]

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?

It can. It doesn’t have to. It’s a choice a for the designer of the game to make. There are good reasons for it to do so and good reasons for it not to. Regardless, in 5e, the rules do not seem to support the player deciding when ability checks should be employed.

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

If it’s relevant for the player to know the information, then yes. Players need to know their bonuses so they can add them to their d20 rolls when called upon to do so. If the DM made all the rolls and did all the math, then it wouldn’t be necessary for the bonuses to appear on the character sheets, but that would be a lot of extra work on the DM.

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.

I disagree. At least in D&D 5e, the player just describes what they want to do. The DM determines the results, calling for rolls to be made if needed. This is true both in and out of combat.

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

Yes, players do decide when to spend Inspiration.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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).

I think your disconnect here is because you are thinking of skills as something you "use". As in, "I make a Perception check." But "Perception" is not, in D&D 5e, an ability to be used.

And the character sheet is full of things the player doesn't get to "use". Armor class, hit points, ability score modifiers. When the DM rolls an attack roll, they'll ask "What is your Armor Class?" and you read the number off the sheet. When the DM says, "Take off 5 hit points" you adjust the number. And when you declare a goal and approach, and the DM asks for a roll of Attribute (Skill), you find the number and add it to the d20.

I find this idea of yours, that a character sheet should only contain things the player gets to invoke, to be kind of bizarre.

 

[Ovinomancer]

One assumption allows us to know what text is rules and what text is not. The other assumption gives us no such clarity. I think it’s clear that the former is a more sound assumption about the intent of a rule book.

I’m not arguing the rules mandate this end state. That would be impossible, since the rules say to ignore them if you don’t like them. What I am arguing is that there is not support in the rules for NPCs “using sicial skills against” PCs.

I don't see how you can say that your argument is the better while also saying that it requires that you ignore it because rules only apply when the GM wants them to. I'm rather confused by the argument that yours is more logically consistent because it self destructs.

ETA: Again, I think there's a very strong case to be made for arguing that social skills should not apply to PCs. However, I think going with claiming that you have a more logical argument from the rules that this is so is probably the weakest version of any such argument.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't see how you can say that your argument is the better while also saying that it requires that you ignore it because rules only apply when the GM wants them to. I'm rather confused by the argument that yours is more logically consistent because it self destructs.

What?? When did I say rules only apply when the GM wants them to?

ETA: Again, I think there's a very strong case to be made for arguing that social skills should not apply to PCs. However, I think going with claiming that you have a more logical argument from the rules that this is so is probably the weakest version of any such argument.

What I’m saying is that I do not see support in the rules for ability checks being used to resolve actions taken to try and influence the behavior of PCs.

 

[Voadam]

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).

A character's AC and hp usually are also something others invoke by attacking a PC, but it is useful to have them on your sheet and for a PC to manage the reference for it.

The players get to make decisions in character builds that impact ability checks for their characters. It would be fairly weird design to make character design choices then hide them from the players just because they don't actively invoke them.

Everything on the sheet could be offloaded to the DM to manage, having it on the PC side is useful.

 

[clearstream]

This is a false equivalence.

Seeing as it is the equivalence that is the bone of contention, claiming false equivalence seems to beg the question: it rests on your assumption that your position is the right one.

 

[Charlaquin]

Seeing as it is the equivalence that is the bone of contention, claiming false equivalence seems to beg the question: it rests on your assumption that your position is the right one.

No, you’re equating an action that forces the player to make a certain decision for their character with an action that causes the character’s position to change without their input. Those things are not equivalent, whether we take the statement that the player decides what their character does as a rule or not.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I agree with this.

My point is that the players - and the game itself - should in turn leave the roleplaying of the NPCs in the hands of the DM. The presence of social skills on the player-side character sheets strongly fights against this, however, as if it's on the character sheet (and further, if players have invested resources into those skills) there's a quite reasonable expectation that those skills will be made meaningful somehow. The problem is, making those skills meaningful forces the DM - even if by her own choice - to give up her autonomy in how to roleplay her NPCs.

Get rid of player-side social skills and this conflict goes away.

We've been over this, though. The DM has enough on their plate without having to master the inner workings of every single NPC and monster. If they want to outsource a decision to the dice during a meaningful interaction, I hardly see that as a bad thing. Keep in mind, in 5e the dice only come out (for most tables, I suppose I should say in this thread) when there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence to failure. Calling for a check in which a PC might best (or fail to best) an NPC in a social interaction to achieve a goal can be an exciting moment at the table. To (badly) paraphrase Mr Franklin: "Those who would give up fun mechanics, to purchase a little temporary autonomy, deserve neither." Or something like that. Sounded better in my head.

TL;DR: DM Agency is really a strange concept, IMO, but apparently not a uniquely held one.