D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

We have two rules that are in direct contradiction with one another. I am thinking of these two -

PHB 174 A DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure.

and

PHB185 In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks.

To my reading, D&D doesn't treat these statements as equal: it tips the scales to the DM. The section on PHB 185 - Roleplaying - is describing how players can go about doing that (how they can roleplay.) There's a fair argument that it is not concretely supplying a rule, even though it has been taken that way on these forums in the past. (I guess I have to step back from my earlier feeling of agreement with @Charlaquin on that score.)

[EDIT Or maybe there is another location where words similar to PHB185 exist and are more concretely cast as a rule?]

I'll say it again: it's not that the DM can't use the rule on 174 to say, "The Orc successfully intimidated you. Consider yourself intimidated." It's just that the player has 100% authority in deciding how to interpret and act on that, which makes the Orc's dice roll an environmental cue, not a mechanical state change.

No contradiction. (And, in my view, a pointless rolling of dice. If the DM wants the orc to be intimidating, make him/her intimidating.)

 

[iserith]

Is anyone relying on text other than PHB185 as their citation of a "rule" that players determine how their character thinks, acts and talks?

I ask because I went back and read this in context, and there it is not presented as a general - and I dare say crucial - rule. It is presented as an explanation of how you go about roleplaying. Has anyone a more powerful reference?

What is not clear about that statement? Why does it need to be more "powerful?"

 

[Lyxen]

There's no task there. It's just description. It's part of step 1 of the play loop - describing the environment. You don't need to make a check to have an NPC present a lie to the PCs.

So the PC don't get checks either to convincingly present lies to NPCs ? What is Deception for then ?

I'm sorry, but it's exactly the same thing, a task.

You might make a check as part of a contest IF the players say they want to assess the NPC's body language and mannerisms to determine truthfulness, but there's no need otherwise. Just say what the NPC says.

I'm sorry, but just as the players sometimes are not equal to the task of roleplaying their character and prefer to describe it themselves, I don't feel I can present an argument as convincingly as a Demon Prince with 26 Cha and Deception proficiency. Call me a bad DM...

If you think they're a good liar, they say it smoothly while looking in the PCs' eyes, for example. If you think they're a bad liar, they stutter, fidget, and don't make eye contact. If they're a really, really good liar, they do the latter while telling the PCs the truth. No need to roll for flavor. Do it if you like, but it's not an ability check.

It's exactly the same task than when a PC attempts to convince and NPC. Zero difference, if you still think that there is a difference, you will have to find a rule that shows that there is a difference.

The only rule that is different is about the attitude, because NPCs have one and PCs don't, but that only a minor part of the Social Encounter.

 

[Lyxen]

The player is free to roleplay that however they wish. Which really depends on context of the scene, I would think.
Is there an implication that the player must play out their PC's reaction to that information in a particular way?

No, just as there is no implication that an NPC should react to a PC intimidating them.

 

[HammerMan]

So, I need to make a check to growl in your game, with the outcome of that growling to be left to the GM? Or to speak in a certain way, with no expectation of outcome? I have issues with some of the others, but these stand out as fairly glaring.

you only need to make a check if you are trying to be intimadating. You can growl all you want (I had a pplayer play aferal character once and they did all the time no roll...unless they wanted to effect someone, then i decided if they needed a roll or not)

As I've said, you're absolutely fine to do all of this -- the rules of 5e are terrible in this regard and leave entirely open the GM ignoring the results of a roll or finding a way to walk back or thwart any success however they want. Totally fine.

you go out of your way to make my games (both player and DM) sound like the worst... step back and remember that most likely if we all met at a con we could all play in the same game.

I disagree violently that this is the only way to play,

hey me too... i have said like a thousand times in this thread that I understand others read the rules diffrent, and that we all are playing to have fun, and I bet there are a bunch of little diffrences we can all talk about that make our games fun and what we need to work on... it is others telling US that OUR way is against the rules and not a valid reading of the rules...

"just go along with this, the cool story I'm telling will be worth it in the end."

wow...there we go again with the tired "You must railroad" and "You must take away everyones agency"
first we are talking corner cases here not every game ever encounter things... second, if you read my corner cases you would see they are NOT stopping the player from reacting how ever they want (and even more so since I keep explaineing I give MORE not Less leway to my players then RAW rules allows)

 

[HammerMan]

For me, it depends entirely on the situation and the personalities involved.

yup me too

 

[Maxperson]

It no more says that it overrides the player rule, than the charm spell or menacing attack do.

Correct. It far less says that it overrides the player rule than Charm Person and Menacing Attack do. Both of those explicitly carve out exceptions, where social skills do not.

It doesn't need to, because game mechanics can override player choice. In discourse on games, it is usually acknowledged that player makes themselves subject to rules. They do so in order to enjoy the experience that is thereby constituted.

It does, because the rules if that Specific beats general MUST specifically carve out exceptions. No specificity, no specific beats general.

 

[HammerMan]

This is not at all what has been suggested.

then tell me what she does OTHER then rely on the game mechanics?

 

[Maxperson]

And the PCs are someones too. Sorry, all the rest are just examples.

But not all someone's are automatically included. All someones = everyone. We have to look at the context for the social skills and social interactions sections and the context is 100% use on NPCs. Not one example of use on a PC.

Exactly, it just provides information and (hopefully) good roleplay.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm putting together coherent and thematic paragraphs. You're breaking these down line by line. That's not necessary to engage the points I'm making -- it's a rhetorical trick to break things down and scramble the results. This is clear in that you're not actually advancing a counter position throughout, but rather trying to dismiss or discredit specific sentences and force conversation into my defense of those individual points of attack. This muddies everything and allows for some rhetorical judo. I should know, I've done it myself before. I had thought that this discussion was better prior to the engagement of Fisking because we were actually trading positions rather than engaged in the rhetoric.

Sorry, this is not something I’m consciously trying to do as a rhetorical tactic - which I hope my efforts to respond to larger chunks of your text help demonstrate. It’s just easier for me to respond to all of your points individually than to try and hold them all in my head and respond to them all together - doing so makes me more liable to accidentally leave part of your comment unaddressed. But, if my way of responding point by point bothers you, I will try my best to respond to your points more holistically. My apologies if I end up missing something, especially with how quickly this thread is moving.

I didn't actual misrepresent your argument. My prior construction goes to the heart of the issue while yours above is framed towards a different goal of explanation. You're trying to make the argument that the GM cannot frame as uncertain what a player will decide to do and this has never been a point of contention from me. Never. So if that's you're argument, it's moot. It is, however, exceedingly clear that the GM can either directly impose or use check results to impose all kinds of constraints on the PC decision space, e.g. if a monster knocks you prone you cannot decide to walk to the other side of the room. So, nothing in your construction addresses or deals with this outside of the first assumption when paired with the Roleplaying Rule. And that's getting conflicted by the rules for ability checks.

The prone condition imposes specific mechanical restrictions on the actions a probe creature can take. These restrictions, when imposed on a PC, are specific and explicit exceptions to the general rule that players decide what their characters do. And once again, I am not saying the DM cannot frame the outcome of an action taken with the goal of forcing a PC to make a certain decision as uncertain. I’m saying I don’t see support in the rules for them doing so. If you do see support in the rules for them doing so, please point it out.

Those very ability check rules are specifically called out for use by both monsters and PCs. The text of the rules explicitly states, and I'll quote, "[e]very task that a character or monster might attempt in the game is covered by one of the six abilities." Using your assumption about text and rules this states clearly that monsters can attempt tasks in the game and that such task are covered by the six abilities. CHA is one of those six abilities. A monster could undertake a task to convince a PC or intimidate them consistent with this statement.

Agreed.

That would be resolved using the ability check rules.

If the outcome is uncertain, yes. My argument is that the rules do not contain support for the outcome of an action taken with the goal of forcing a PC to make a certain decision being uncertain.

The outcome would be as binding on a PC as on a monster, which is to say not very much. It would appear the player has as much ability to ignore/thwart/sidestep the outcomes here as the GM would.

Sure, if the outcome were determined by an ability check, it would be binding. But since the outcome is not uncertain, the rules don’t support using an ability check to determine the outcome.

Finally, on the insight vs deception, your counterargument was specifically addressed in my initial argument and noted why it fails. Unless I'm using some kind of encoding where a description of a glance or bead of sweat in a location can be decoded by the player as a puzzle to solve the riddle of what the result is, describing things in terms of what the PC notices is either being intentionally vague and not providing clear information OR it's just obfuscating the fact that you are tell the player what their PC thinks. The latter is the most common result. To be clear, the three cases are:
1) provide a clear player side puzzle by using a known encoding of description of body language to meaning
2) provide an unclear player side puzzle by not using clear encoding, just description of body language which the player then has to figure out/guess the meaning of
3) provide clear information about the target's state of mind but avoid using words like "you think" but rather things like "they're sweating a lot and appear like they are not being honest."

3) here is just telling the player what the PC thinks while avoiding words. 1) and 2) are, for me, right out as things I don't want to engage in. If this is your answer, then we can have that discussion, but it's going to entail similar statements about honoring success that I just had with another poster.

I do think that 3 is the best option. I disagree that it is necessary telling the player what their character thinks. You’re telling the player what information their character gleans from their assessment of the other character’s body language and other nonverbal cues. That’s no more “what the character thinks” than telling them they find a secret door, or that they remember a certain detail about a monster.