D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

and yet you assume anyone who does things diffrent is not only doing things wrong (or atleast against the rules) but that they must be taking control...

I have never seen iserith say any such thing. The fact that you interpret his citing the rules in explaining how he runs things and why as “assuming anyone who does things differently is doing them wrong or against the rules” seems wild to me.

we don't use inspiration... we tried a few times but we always forget about it. I even bought chips that say inpiration to try to help us...

So, this is one of the benefits I see to only calling for rolls when an action could succeed or fail and has meaningful stakes. If some rolls merely quantify some aspect of the action (how long it takes you, how easily you do it, how intimidating it is, etc.), it’s harder for the player to figure out when it’s worth spending inspiration and when it isn’t, because some rolls have very high stakes and some rolls have very low stakes and it’s not always obvious which is which. If you only call for rolls when failure is a real possibility and the stakes are significant, then the player always knows. If a roll is being called for, it’s worth spending Inspiration on.

and if they ask "Hey how intimadating is this one compaired to the last"

“That’s up to you. I told you what he did, it’s your decision how intimidating your character finds that.”

 

[billd91]

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

Sure we do. We've got passive perception that can determine how much PCs notice about an environment and, therefore, how I describe it.

 

[HammerMan]

I have never seen iserith say any such thing. The fact that you interpret his citing the rules in explaining how he runs things and why as “assuming anyone who does things differently is doing them wrong or against the rules” seems wild to me.

okay here you go page 2

Plenty of DMs do as you say though. I don't. There's no need for it if I'm adequately describing how the orc attempts to intimidate the PC (for example).

So, this is one of the benefits I see to only calling for rolls when an action could succeed or fail and has meaningful stakes. If some rolls merely quantify some aspect of the action (how long it takes you, how easily you do it, how intimidating it is, etc.), it’s harder for the player to figure out when it’s worth spending inspiration and when it isn’t, because some rolls have very high stakes and some rolls have very low stakes and it’s not always obvious which is which. If you only call for rolls when failure is a real possibility and the stakes are significant, then the player always knows. If a roll is being called for, it’s worth spending Inspiration on.

wait what? how can you go from "has a consequence" to "all consequences are equal"

“That’s up to you. I told you what he did, it’s your decision how intimidating your character finds that.”

and we have clicky math rocks to adjuacate how well they do (well it is all magic computer numbers since covid but...I hope to use math rocks again someday)

 

[Charlaquin]

Sure we do. We've got passive perception that can determine how much PCs notice about an environment and, therefore, how I describe it.

That is still resolving the outcome of an action though; just an action performed repeatedly over a period of time, with additional environmental details being described as the outcome of a success.

 

[Charlaquin]

okay here you go page 2

Nowhere in that quote does it say if you don’t rule as he does you’re doing it wrong or against the rules…

wait what? how can you go from "has a consequence" to "all consequences are equal"

All consequences are not equal. But if all actions that require a roll to resolve have a meaningful consequence for failure, then you never have to guess whether spending inspiration will help you avoid a meaningful consequence, or just affect how your success is described. It will always be the former.

and we have clicky math rocks to adjuacate how well they do (well it is all magic computer numbers since covid but...I hope to use math rocks again someday)

And if the player wants to use them to determine how their character reacts to something, they are welcome to do so.

 

[jmartkdr2]

My answer is: "the player controlling that character sets the DC (if any) for social/charisma checks."

So the dm sets dc's for npcs, but if I'm you're trying to persuade or intimidate your character, you set the dc. Or you decide they'd go along anyways, or never would and no roll is allowed.

 

[HammerMan]

My answer is: "the player controlling that character sets the DC (if any) for social/charisma checks."

So the dm sets dc's for npcs, but if I'm you're trying to persuade or intimidate your character, you set the dc. Or you decide they'd go along anyways, or never would and no roll is allowed.

sounds good to me

 

[HammerMan]

Nowhere in that quote does it say if you don’t rule as he does you’re doing it wrong or against the rules…

There's no need for it
those are his words.

All consequences are not equal. But if all actions that require a roll to resolve have a meaningful consequence for failure, then you never have to guess whether spending inspiration will help you avoid a meaningful consequence, or just affect how your success is described. It will always be the former.

since I don't use insperation, how does that interact with my orc rolling to intimadate?

And if the player wants to use them to determine how their character reacts to something, they are welcome to do so.

and yet here is a thread where people keep jumping in to say no we shouldn't, that there is no need.

 

[Voadam]

Thanks for posting related sections of the rules, but I can see nothing that overrides what I bolded in the quote above.

The part you quoted "a skill check does not tell a PC how to act, they determine their own thoughts and actions." was my summary of a ruling to make, not a rule from the books that I saw.

People are free to play how they wish, of course. I see no support at all, however, for uncertainty as to the outcome when it comes to how players respond to attempts to deceive, persuade, or intimidate their characters, given how the rules state clearly that it's up to the player to determine this.

Could you point out where the rules clearly state that it is up to the players to determine this?

 

[Charlaquin]

There's no need for it
those are his words.

There is no need for me to eat ice cream, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or against the rules for me to do so.

since I don't use insperation, how does that interact with my orc rolling to intimadate?

I was explaining how one of the benefits of the way I prefer to adjudicate actions is that it makes Inspiration easier to remember and players actually use it.

and yet here is a thread where people keep jumping in to say no we shouldn't, that there is no need.

No one has said you shouldn’t. Personally, I prefer not to roll checks to resolve NPCs’ attempts to socially leverage PCs. I prefer to describe the action and let the player decide how their character reacts. If the player wants to roll a die to decide how their character reacts, or flip a coin, or draw reactions out of a hat, that’s their decision.