D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

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

What @Charlaquin said.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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...

Off-topic, but try using Inspiration after-the-roll and then it will get used.

 

[Charlaquin]

Off-topic, but try using Inspiration after-the-roll and then it will get used.

Yeah, this works to resolve the same problem of not having to guess whether or not it’s worthwhile to spend inspiration on a given roll, in a different way.

 

[billd91]

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.

And yet, it's a die roll (or series thereof) being used to inform how to describe an environment. It's not that different from rolling an orc's intimidation check to see how intimidating to describe him (really floridly if you rolled well, not so much if you rolled poorly). Sure, they're related to tasks being undertaken - but how well these tasks are performed can certainly inform the description a DM gives of an environment.

 

[iserith]

omg... are you kidding me.
If you saw my tuesday night players run for even a single night you would know I have 0 control over how they act...


nope... just if they role play or not. I don't consider "I am always 100% in control and never aftraied or scared and I have no flaws" to be role playing... but I guess that is a personal choice (one I make clear in every session 0)


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...


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...


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

You said in post #3: "I do however penelize xp of fearless players... if they literally say "Nothing can scare me" or never react I start taking 10% of xp for the whole group.." You specifically used the word "penelize" [sic]. You may have no control over how they act as you say above, but this practice is certainly a means to disincentivize acting "fearless." I think it's therefore a reasonable conclusion that you prefer they act some other way.

Me explaining what the rules say and how I do things is not a statement or judgment on what you are doing. What you're doing has no impact at all on me. If you claim that the rules support what you're doing, I will object to that assertion. If you ask me what I do, I will tell you. Please do not conflate these with saying how one must play because I simply don't believe there's a single way to play the game.

If a player asks how intimidating this orc is compared to the last, let them decide based on your description of this orc compared to the last. You describe the environment. They decide what to do in the face of that.

 

[Charlaquin]

And yet, it's a die roll (or series thereof) being used to inform how to describe an environment. It's not that different from rolling an orc's intimidation check to see how intimidating to describe him (really floridly if you rolled well, not so much if you rolled poorly). Sure, they're related to tasks being undertaken - but how well these tasks are performed can certainly inform the description a DM gives of an environment.

Right, but the difference is that the former is being used to determine if an action succeeds or fails, and if it succeeds, additional description is given as a result. The latter is being used to determine how to describe an action. Those may both impact the description, but they are different procedures.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

@HammerMan I think one of the reasons you're getting so much pushback in this thread is the default play mode in D&D (and lots of similar games). PCs are part of a team, and while some minor intra-party squabbling or shenanigans can make for a bit of color, those little jabs and spats are just comic relief, basically. On the whole, it's the team of PCs vs. the NPCs, and, really, against the GM. And since everything serves that running PCs vs. NPCs (or, by proxy, PCs vs. GM) conflict, almost any sort of PvP interactions are a breach of conduct, and any attempt by the GM or another PC to tell a PC how they feel about something is a kind of invasion.

IMO it's only when you get into other kinds of games that really feature PvP elements, or where things are more generally collaborative, that that default mode breaks down. What happens when a game isn't about whether you can collectively beat a given bad guy or steal a given treasure, but what happens to the PCs more generally, including how they might hurt or betray each other? What if you aren't a band of adventurers with a common (if vague) purpose, but a group of incompatible survivors thrown together, and it's clear from the campaign's start that it's not a forever game, and that it's bound to get messy (in a horror or apocalyptic mode)? The more the game is a game, and not a kind of partial simulation of whatever the GM thinks is worth simulating in detail (combat but not social interactions, for example, or the logistics of wilderness survival but not its psychological effects) with no end in sight, the more you can have stuff like PCs using social skills on other PCs, or NPCs using social skills on PCs, without raising anyone's hackles. But these forums aren't, on the whole, about that sort of play.

 

[billd91]

Right, but the difference is that the former is being used to determine if an action succeeds or fails, and if it succeeds, additional description is given as a result. The latter is being used to determine how to describe an action. Those may both impact the description, but they are different procedures.

Do we need to split that hair? They're both being used to describe the environment - which was the topic of the statement under question.

 

[Bill Zebub]

. It's not that different from rolling an orc's intimidation check to see how intimidating to describe him (really floridly if you rolled well, not so much if you rolled poorly).

I guess I don’t understand the value of doing this. The description is not going to change my reaction, if I know what an “orc” is.

To make an analogy, I’m not going to be intimidated by a 10 year old, no matter how he acts, unless:
1. He’s holding something dangerous
2. He’s got backup
3. I suspect he’s not really what he seems
4. For some reason I don’t realize I’m dealing with a kid

So instead of rolling dice with the orc, if I want my players to be intimidated by something that normally wouldn’t be much of a threat, I’d use one of those strategies.

 

[iserith]

Right, but the difference is that the former is being used to determine if an action succeeds or fails, and if it succeeds, additional description is given as a result. The latter is being used to determine how to describe an action. Those may both impact the description, but they are different procedures.

Right. I think there's some conflation going on with regard to where the play loop, well, loops. Passive Perception resolves an action related to the PC's task of being aware of whatever they established. The DM narrates the resolution of that action. The loop then goes back to describing the environment. These are separate things, even if a given DM doesn't treat them that way.