D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Ovinomancer]

Ah, I get it now. Because the DM is narrating the outcomes of the check, not the behaviors of the PCs.

I mean, let's take the Frightened condition as an example. Even if the DM said that the result of a check imposed the Frightened condition upon the PC, then what? The PC would be bound by the mechanics of the Frightened condition: disadvantage on checks and attacks while the source of fright is within sight, and can't move closer to the source of fright. None of that infringes upon the player determining how their character thinks, speaks, or acts. They might think or say "I ain't afraid of no source of fright", but so what? They can't do certain things as a result. They might try to act brave and move closer but, again, so what? The just because you attempt to do something doesn't mean you can't do it. The player is still deciding on their PC's behaviors - thoughts, actions, speech. The outcomes of those behaviors are constrained now however.

YES!

 

[HammerMan]

At this point, it almost seems like you are deliberately misinterpreting what people are saying. I certainly hope not. I will try to maintain patience.

Again: The player can have their PC pretend (think) anything they want. That does not make it real in the game world. I mean, what they think could be right, but just because they thought it does not make it so.

okay bare with me (I will admit I am going to crazy extremes becuse this is getting under my skin) so the PC can think anything baring outside forces (and for this we sill just say only magic can do that).

I am the player. I need the information on how intimidating/persasive/diplomatic/bluffey (okay I don't have a good word that fits but howgood a lie) this creature is so I can respond to it with how my character would respond. some people say the dice and stats, and some people say description and words. Can you understand both are supported by the game, and are very small bits of play style.

What? I argued nothing of the kind. I said that players can roleplay their characters any way they wish. That does not mean they will ignore everything the DM is saying.

what cAN they ignore?

 

[Charlaquin]

@HammerMan, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’ve been trying to avoid engaging with you directly because I don’t think our ways of forming meaning are compatible and therefore any argument between us is bound to be fruitless. But, I don’t want to put you on ignore because I think doing so only harms discussions by making some of the context of the discussion inaccessible for some participants. Since you’re asking me direct questions, I will try to answer them, but I just want to reiterate that I don’t think anything productive is going to be able to come out of you and I having a discussion.

Okay so if the DM doesn't know how intimidating/Persasive this creature is, that is uncertain right...

I don’t believe the purpose of an ability check, as laid out by the rules, is to determine how well a creature performs a given task; ability checks are used to determine the binary outcome of an action - success or failure - when the DM cannot make that determination from the fictional positioning alone. So, yes, in the literal English meaning of the word, it is uncertain how intimidating or persuasive an action is. But, the question that’s relevant to whether or not an ability check should be made is, “can this action succeed or fail, and do success or failure have meaningful consequences?”

so how does a DM (not you, not me, any general DM) determen how good a monster is at a charisma skill if they don't have the ability to call for a cha skill roll'

I don’t think “how good a monster is” at a given task is particularly relevant here. What matters is if they succeed or fail. And if their goal is to get a player’s character to make a particular decision, they fail, because the rulebook says the player makes decisions for their character. As for how to decide “how intimidating/persuasive” the attempt is? Use whatever criteria you feel like, it’s ultimately just narrative flair at that point.

 

[HammerMan]

Everyone claiming that the social skills are an example of specific beats general, allowing social skills to override the general roleplaying rule allowing the player to decide without doubt, how his PC responds to social situations. That includes you.

try again. I am aokay with PC vs PC useing skills (any) and NPC/Monster vs PC skills (any) and NONE of that is against what ytou said... I have since like page 7ish said repeatedly the player gets to decide how to respond...

player still gets to decide whether the PC is persuaded or intimidated. Not the DM.

 

[iserith]

um, what? You can't wrap your mind around after 40ish pages of back and forth where we see it diffrent unless we are wrong?

the orc is attempting the task

yes and?!?

you read that is such a weird way though... a way that makes every action a word game, every time something breaks it you need to find an exception or just disallow it.

by your reading... try again... Your RAI and my RAI are not the same, but both are our best way of reading RAW.

Again, the only way to get to your position is ignoring rules that are inconvenient. And, also again, that's fine at the table. Not fine in a discussion about what the rules say.

The orc is attempting to intimidate the PCs for some purpose. There is no roll here since the player decides the outcome of that attempt to intimidate the PC. You are rolling for flavor or color. Again, fine, but not supported by the rules.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded sentence. Nothing breaks in my game. The rules support it. Everything runs smoothly.

Technically, the only RAI that matters is what the designers say since they are the ones that wrote the rules with intention. We can surmise RAI and we can point out RAW. As @Maxperson says, if you say RAW is something other than it is, you'll get pushback.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I agree with that starting principle. I also think that principle is supported (not mandated) by the rules.

I disagree with that assessment. I think the text is not always very clear, but it has specific intent behind it (as evidenced by Sage Advice), and I think that intent is discernible from the text itself, via a thorough and holistic reading. It does require taking all of the rules in both the player’s handbook and the dungeon master’s guide together as one complete rule set, which may have been a poor choice for how to communicate the intent, given that it’s well known that most players and DMs don’t engage with the rules that way.

I cannot find anything in the text that provide the intent you are suggesting here. Someone fresh to the game with no prior experience would be highly unlikely to discover this intent. I feel that your certainty of intent comes more from smuggled assumptions from prior play and perhaps discussion here on the boards that helped forge and cast your current opinion. I will say that a few years ago I'd have probably agreed with you, but in the intervening time with my broadening of experience in different games, looking at what 5e actually says and does has made me much, much less confident in this argument. Your argument requires that you elevate a single sentence to a major rule of play, that you make an assumption about text being rules to make it so, and then requires quite a bit of downstream adjustment of other rules and outright ignoring some. That, to me, violently conflicts with the starting assumption and I cannot see a way to reconcile some of these issues and maintain the argument that it's clearly intended play or that the rules actually support whatever intent is assumed. I find it quite possible that Jeremy sees this as fully RAI but yet misses the fact that the RAW doesn't really support it. It was a collaborative issue, and this may have been such an implied requirement that it was missed entirely in the final product. I find it contradicted (but then I also find the counter-argument contradicted -- my position is that you can't form a fully coherent position either way).

 

[HammerMan]

@HammerMan, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I’ve been trying to avoid engaging with you directly because I don’t think our ways of forming meaning are compatible and therefore any argument between us is bound to be fruitless.

okay, are you saying you want me to stop talking to you?

I don’t believe the purpose of an ability check, as laid out by the rules, is to determine how well a creature performs a given task; ability checks are used to determine the binary outcome of an action - success or failure - when the DM cannot make that determination from the fictional positioning alone.

Okay... this is the first time I have seen what I have been looking for for days

okay you don't believe it others do
also I am fine with only talking about the pass/fail... as you said when trying to decide something:
when the DM cannot make that determination from the fictional positioning alone.

that is when I call for rolls.

So, yes, in the literal English meaning of the word, it is uncertain how intimidating or persuasive an action is.

thank you. as such it is an equally valid reading that it is or is not by the rules.

 

[iserith]

thank you. as such it is an equally valid reading that it is or is not by the rules.

No, not where ability checks are concerned.

 

[HammerMan]

Again, the only way to get to your position is ignoring rules that are inconvenient.

wrong

And, also again, that's fine at the table. Not fine in a discussion about what the rules say.

you don't get to decide what is or is not fine in the discussion...becuse much like in how to read the rules, you don't get the last say,

Technically, the only RAI that matters is what the designers say since they are the ones that wrote the rules with intention.

how is the Rules As Interpreted not a vaild part of the conversations now... are you really of the belief ONLY your Interpretation can possible be come to?

We can surmise RAI and we can point out RAW. As @Maxperson says, if you say RAW is something other than it is, you'll get pushback.

and that is what is happening to you... you say RAW is ONLY skills by players, and you are getting push back

 

[iserith]

wrong

you don't get to decide what is or is not fine in the discussion...becuse much like in how to read the rules, you don't get the last say,

how is the Rules As Interpreted not a vaild part of the conversations now... are you really of the belief ONLY your Interpretation can possible be come to?

and that is what is happening to you... you say RAW is ONLY skills by players, and you are getting push back

RAI is Rules as Intended, not Rules as Interpreted. As in "what the designers intended."

Where did I say "RAW is ONLY skills by players?" Why would I say something I don't believe to be true?