D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

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.

You brought up passive perception as a counter-example to Iserith’s assertion that we use checks to determine the outcome of actions, not to determine how to describe the environment. But passive Perception is indeed determining the outcome of an action. It just happens that the two potential outcomes are “a particular hidden feature of the environment is described” or “a particular hidden feature of the environment is not described.” It is therefore not an effective counter-example to Iserith’s claim.

 

[iserith]

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.

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

PHB, page 185: "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." (Emphasis designers.)

You can also reference PHB, page 5 - 6, which differentiates the roles of DM and player and who gets to say what and when, often referred to as the "play loop."

 

[billd91]

You brought up passive perception as a counter-example to Iserith’s assertion that we use checks to determine the outcome of actions, not to determine how to describe the environment. But passive Perception is indeed determining the outcome of an action. It just happens that the two potential outcomes are “a particular hidden feature of the environment is described” or “a particular hidden feature of the environment is not described.” It is therefore not an effective counter-example to Iserith’s claim.

I'm looking to counter utterly unnecessary pedantry (what else is new) that we have checks to resolve tasks, not resolve how to describe the environment - when the fact is we do both whenever we adjust our planned description of the environment based on the outcome of a task.
But hey, you guys can split whatever hairs you feel are necessary to fail to communicate with each other with clear conscience.

 

[HammerMan]

@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.

I haven't had much PVP in 2 editions... so that seems weird. I on page one said I roll to give the player information there character would have.

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?

I personally dislike those games, in other threads I have talked about how we don't keep secretes out of game, we only do any 'against each other' if we all agree it is fun.

 

[iserith]

I'm looking to counter utterly unnecessary pedantry (what else is new) that we have checks to resolve tasks, not resolve how to describe the environment - when the fact is we do both whenever we adjust our planned description of the environment based on the outcome of a task.
But hey, you guys can split whatever hairs you feel are necessary to fail to communicate with each other with clear conscience.

Narrating the result of the adventurers' actions and describing the environment are different parts of the play loop. See "How to Play" for details.

When applied to the situation of the orc trying to intimidate a PC, the question may arise: "Does the orc intimidate the PC?" At this point, page 185 comes into play which states the player determines how the character thinks, acts, and talks. Because the player establishes this, there is no uncertainty as to the outcome of the orc's task and therefore no ability check is needed.

If instead the DM is asking the question "How intimidating is the orc?", this is not something ability checks resolve. There is no meaningful consequence for failure particularly as, again, the player decides how to react anyway. There is no DC the DM can set. It's just part of describing the environment. What the player has their character do in the face of that is up to them.

Is a DM wrong for using dice rolls to inform their description of the environment in addition to how to narrate the results of the adventurers' actions? No. Do the rules support this? No. Will the game break if they do it? Not really, though @Charlaquin makes a good point about a correlation between lack of Inspiration use and games that use checks for description of environment. I wouldn't know when best to spend it either in games where at least some ability checks were just for color.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm looking to counter utterly unnecessary pedantry (what else is new) that we have checks to resolve tasks, not resolve how to describe the environment - when the fact is we do both whenever we adjust our planned description of the environment based on the outcome of a task.
But hey, you guys can split whatever hairs you feel are necessary to fail to communicate with each other with clear conscience.

It describes a meaningful difference in process though.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Rolling dice to determine “how intimidating is the orc” is no different from rolling dice to determine what’s on the menu at the tavern: if the DM finds it a useful aid, go for it. But it has nothing to do with the rules of the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

Rolling dice to determine “how intimidating is the orc” is no different from rolling dice to determine what’s on the menu at the tavern: if the DM finds it a useful aid, go for it. But it has nothing to do with the rules of the game.

Yes. This.

 

[HammerMan]

When applied to the situation of the orc trying to intimidate a PC, the question may arise: "Does the orc intimidate the PC?" At this point, page 185 comes into play which states the player determines how the character thinks, acts, and talks. Because the player establishes this, there is no uncertainty as to the outcome of the orc's task and therefore no ability check is needed.

there is no uncertainty until there is...

If instead the DM is asking the question "How intimidating is the orc?", this is not something ability checks resolve.

yes it is... stats show how 'strong/healthy/smart/charasmatic the monster is and skill prof shows what they are good at. add togather how inately they are stated and how skilled they are and you get a number... most of the time we add a d20 for variable, but I guess you could just say +5.

There is no meaningful consequence for failure particularly as, again, the player decides how to react anyway.

and again and again and again this is right up there with the reverse... if the player tries to intimadate the orc the DM is in control of the orc he doesn't HAVE to call for a roll... but they CAN...

There is no DC the DM can set.

the player can

It's just part of describing the environment.

the description comes with a game mechanic number

What the player has their character do in the face of that is up to them.

hey only part we agree on

Is a DM wrong for using dice rolls to inform their description of the environment in addition to how to narrate the results of the adventurers' actions? No. Do the rules support this? No.

sure they do. You just don't read them the way others do. the very fact that we have this argument (not me and you but enworld in general) every few years should show that some people read the rules and see it diffrent then you...

Will the game break if they do it? Not really, though @Charlaquin makes a good point about a correlation between lack of Inspiration use and games that use checks for description of environment.

nobody answered me... since I don't use insperation, how would it effect the orc roll? I thought it was to give advantage to PC rolls, so what am I missing?

I wouldn't know when best to spend it either in games where at least some ability checks were just for color.

you could ask. Again I don't use it but I use the lucky feat, I have had players ask "is it worth me throwing a lucky point?"

 

[Voadam]

PHB, page 185: "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it's you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks." (Emphasis designers.)

Yeah taken as a rule and not a narrative description of roleplaying that would be a general rule and would mean unless something more specific said to do otherwise.

A spell can tell you to do otherwise.

The question is whether a skill check can tell you to do otherwise as well.

You can also reference PHB, page 5 - 6, which differentiates the roles of DM and player and who gets to say what and when, often referred to as the "play loop."

I am not seeing any differentiation between skills and spells in any of that.

Reading those sections with a player trying to do something against another player it is not clear that skills do not work against fellow players. Say a player's action is to cast a mind control spell on another character or to attempt to persuade them, it would follow the player declares what they want their character to do formula.

I don't think this part of the rules tells you about spells or skills or character roleplaying, I think you have to look at the skills section for whether skills are creating a specific exception by allowing a check to influence or deceive or persuade or entertain or intimidate another PC.

I do not see clear statements in 5e that skills like persuade work on NPCs only the way that say 3.5 diplomacy was explicitly to influence NPCs.