D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

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.

Something this makes me think of is the idea of submitting ourselves to the game, just so that we can enjoy the experience it offers. What has been called the lusory attitude. The player adopting the lusory attitude, when told they are intimidated acts accordingly for the pleasure of doing so.

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

Why roll dice at all? The content - or my contention perhaps - is that emergent narrative is interesting. I like that the aspiring paladin might fall to an orc's arrow - just by misfortune. I enjoy in particular stochastic or biased-chance systems. So I don't mind that if the player-character wants to lie about X and the inquisitor wants to figure out if they are lying, it's deception against insight. As DM I could always just decide, and the rules support that. I just see no reason to do so.

 

[iserith]

1st, charm (spell,condition, applied by magic or skill like the rouge ability) never says it is an exception... it just is.
2nd, I am yet to hear (read) anyone say that they DO determine what someone elses character thinks, says, or does...

1. It doesn't have to specifically say it is an exception. It's plain by reading it. Just like the spell fly, as @Maxperson referenced upthread, creates an exception to a human's movement.

2. This is not relevant. The objection at this point seems to be from you and others that the monster makes an ability check to influence a PC. They don't. You're making a roll for color or flavor purposes, to inform your description and/or act as a stand-in for it under the assumption the player will respond differently to a 24 Intimidate versus a 7 Intimidate. That's fine if you want to do that, but it's not supported by the rules. Ability checks resolve tasks. They have a DC. They have success and failure. None of which is present when you're rolling for color or flavor.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can I ask, what is the test here that establishes lack of uncertainty for you? Is it the text on PHB185 (i.e. you see that as a rule), is it something from outside the game, or something else - perhaps text somewhere else in the core books?

Remember I am not asking if that uncertainty is a good or bad idea, or leads to better or worse play, I am asking from whence lack of it is established?

I don’t recall the page number off the top of my head, but it’s the quote we’ve been discussing that says the player decides what their character thinks, feels, and does. Since a player decides what their character thinks, feels, and does, the outcome of any action taken with the goal of forcing a player’s character to make a specific decision is not uncertain.

Some game actions, such as the effects of certain spells, maneuvers, and actions in combat, explicitly state exceptions to this general principle. Ability checks, as far as I can tell, do not.

 

[HammerMan]

I can't read the posts you're referencing. Nevertheless, we're now back to saying "This isn't a rule because it doesn't help my argument. It's a guideline." I don't buy it.

except your entire argument rests on "This one sentence in this book on this page read the way I read it"
once ANYONE reads that sentence differently that changes. Now I am not saying you read it wrong, just different, I can even see HOW you came to the conclusion you did. Infact you are way better spoken (written/typed) then I am. So I 00% see your view. You however are SO hard coded that you must have gotten it right, that you can't imagine anyone read it differently unless they read it wrong.

All you need to do is take a step back and put yourself in our shoes, the same way you do an NPC. Look at the world (well the subset of a single book) the way we do for a moment and realize neither we nor you are right or wrong, we just read the rule different (and interpreting a rule is different then a house rule)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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

That's right, the DM will likewise determine how the NPC reacts when a PC bests them in a social interaction ability check - which will (or at least should) be in accordance with the success stakes they provided when the check was called for.

 

[Maxperson]

1st, charm (spell,condition, applied by magic or skill like the rouge ability) never says it is an exception... it just is.
2nd, I am yet to hear (read) anyone say that they DO determine what someone elses character thinks, says, or does...

Charm is a bad example, as it doesn't force a PC to do anything. Even charmed, if the player decides his PC just wouldn't do what is asked, there's no roll due to no chance of failure.

"You attempt to charm a humanoid you can see within range. It must make a Wisdom saving throw, and does so with advantage if you or your companions are fighting it. If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your companions do anything harmful to it. The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance. When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you."

Suggestion is a good example of specific beats general.

"The target must make a Wisdom saving throw. On a failed save, it pursues the course of action you described to the best of its ability."

That is a direct contradiction to the rule allowing players to decide what their character thinks or does. Since it is a specific rule, it beats the general one.

Can you show me such a specific contradiction in the social skills or social interactions sections of the PHB and DMG?

 

[iserith]

except your entire argument rests on "This one sentence in this book on this page read the way I read it"
once ANYONE reads that sentence differently that changes. Now I am not saying you read it wrong, just different, I can even see HOW you came to the conclusion you did. Infact you are way better spoken (written/typed) then I am. So I 00% see your view. You however are SO hard coded that you must have gotten it right, that you can't imagine anyone read it differently unless they read it wrong.

All you need to do is take a step back and put yourself in our shoes, the same way you do an NPC. Look at the world (well the subset of a single book) the way we do for a moment and realize neither we nor you are right or wrong, we just read the rule different (and interpreting a rule is different then a house rule)

I have never once said you're right or wrong for playing however you want. What I am saying is that the approach you use is not supported by the rules. That's it. If that's a problem for you, I don't know what else to say except maybe don't do that. But ultimately, the rules serve the DM, not the other way around, so it really shouldn't be a problem for anyone to play however they want regardless of what the rules support. Right?

 

[Ovinomancer]

But you can indeed take the Shove action, a player-facing action option, which, much like spells, is a specific game action with specific effects. Resolving a declaration of the Shove action is a different, more specific process than resolving an improvised action, stated in terms of goal and approach. There are many such actions that have such specific resolution procedures, most of them either spells or “actions in combat.”

They don't alter the play loop or the GM's authorities in that loop, though. They just provide narrower focus -- they aren't different things. Saying "I take the shove action against the orc to knock it prone" isn't any different than any other action declaration in kind. It's not a special case of "declare actions" that the player is engaged with. It's just a place where the player has an expectation of how that action will be adjudicated, but even here the GM still has authority to decide to go other ways. Combat is not a special case of the loop, it's the same loop with options for finer resolution of actions and more codified options available to the GM for resolution choices. You can run a 5e combat entirely using ability checks (arguably you always do).

 

[Voadam]

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?

There is an implication they must roleplay consistent with the information.

Someone coming across as seeming trustworthy can get different reactions.

"He seems trustworthy, I will trust him on this." is consistent.
"He seems trustworthy but he might be good at bluffing so I still better not trust him" is consistent.

"He does not seem trustworthy to me so I don't trust him." would be inconsistent even though it got the same results as the second option above.

Same for roleplaying out a charm that makes you regard someone as a friendly acquaintance.

"I treat friendly acquaintances with casual disregard so I will not stop doing Y" is consistent.

"I can do what I want so even though I would stop doing Y for a friendly acquaintance I will not stop doing Y" is not consistent.

These are not generally strong constraints on a widely differing number of reactions, but there are some implied restraints.

 

[HammerMan]

1. It doesn't have to specifically say it is an exception. It's plain by reading it. Just like the spell fly, as @Maxperson referenced upthread, creates an exception to a human's movement.

yes you got it ffor a second, no exception calls out it is... so when we see skill checks can intimidate or persuade, we see the same way you see the fly spell

2. This is not relevant.

it is literally the entire argument at this point

The objection at this point seems to be from you and others that the monster makes an ability check to influence a PC. They don't.

I disagree. I have read page after page of you saying how you came to that conclusion. I can understand how you came to it. I can also admit it is a valid reading of the text... it just isn't how EVERYONE reads the text... and since more people play and do NOT post we can't even find out what % see it either of our ways or some other way.

You're making a check for color or flavor purposes, to inform your description and/or act as a stand-in for it under the assumption the player will respond differently to a 24 Intimidate versus a 7 Intimidate.

If the DC is 14, then yes a 24 is a success and 7 is a fail (my house rule of degrees aside)

That's fine if you want to do that, but it's not supported by the rules.

by your reading. Plenty of us right here are telling you we read it diffrent... not we house rule it, that we read the book, and come to a different conclusion.

Ability checks resolve tasks.

the task is to be intimidating.

They have a DC.

okay so we set one... Player, DM, game designer, newbie, me, you, anyone we set a DC.

They have success and failure.

yes they are intimidating or they are not

None of which is present when you're rolling for color or flavor.

read how each step I have dismantled this.