D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Aldarc]

Yeah, he also said, “you can ask to make a Wisdom (Insight) check against anyone” which also doesn’t seem to be supported by the rules from what I can tell. I don’t tend to put much stock in JC’s rulings though.

Interestingly, he does say that the DM can use the result of a Charisma check to inform their description of the action, just not to force the PC to think, act, or feel a certain way (I don’t think the RAW really supports that, but I don’t disagree with him that the DM can do that.) He also addresses use of Wisdom (Insight) and says that it can indeed be used to determine another PC’s emotional state, which seems to support my assertion that the rules don’t consider determining what a PC knows to be the same thing as forcing them to think a certain way.

Thankfully, since you don't put much stock into his rulings, we can also safely dismiss how his ruling would support your argument on this matter.

 

[Mordhau]

Words mean things. The rules say what they say. Whether one needs to follow the what the rules say as they say it is another question (to which the obvious answer is no, one does not. The rules even say as much.)

If there was a clear answer to the issues being argued here there wouldn’t be the argument.

The argument seems to be about an implied hidden meaning (the real unstated intention behind the rules) - people seem to disagree about what it is but everyone seems to assume there is one.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thankfully, since you don't put much stock into his rulings, we can also safely dismiss how his ruling would support your argument on this matter.

We can indeed. I rather think dismissing Jeremy Crawford’s rulings and how they would support or not support any interpretation of the rules is a good policy. I made a whole thread to that effect once.

 

[Charlaquin]

If there was a clear answer to the issues being argued here there wouldn’t be the argument.

The argument seems to be about an implied hidden meaning (the real unstated intention behind the rules) - people seem to disagree about what it is but everyone seems to assume there is one.

That’s certainly not the argument I’m making. I think I’ve been quite clear and explicit that I am arguing for what I understand the rules to say, not what I understand them to permit. Some people seem to object to my position as if I was arguing for some real unstated intention behind the rules, despite my pretty constant assertions to the contrary.

 

[Lanefan]

Words mean things. The rules say what they say.

The rules say what they say, yes. The question is whether they say what they mean.

And as this was even more true in 1e than it is today, I know of what I speak.

 

[Charlaquin]

The rules say what they say, yes. The question is whether they say what they mean.

And as this was even more true in 1e than it is today, I know of what I speak.

Well, if we are to believe Jeremy Crawford about what he says they mean, I would say no, they don’t say what they mean. Fortunately, I find following what they do say to result in a more cohesive and satisfying gameplay experience than what he says they mean.

 

[clearstream]

Not with what a PC thinks or does. The rules give that power to the player.

So far as I can make out, that misreads the wording in question. Those words define what it is to be roleplaying. They do not impose any constraint on the DM.

My belief that it is certain is not an assumption, it’s the conclusion I’ve drawn from my reading of the rules, such as the statement under discussion that a player decides what their character does. To establish uncertainty, the DM must suspend that decision-making power, which I do not see support in the rules for them doing.

Ah, ok, I see the confusion here. I too am arguing the premise as presented by @clearstream as a means of resolving the conflict with the “roleplaying rule.” They presented the argument that the “roleplaying rule” represents a dichotomy between roleplaying - wherein the player decides what their character thinks, says, and does - and mechanics, wherein the rules say what the PCs think, say, and do. They suggested that the DM has the authority to suspend roleplaying (as they are defining it here) in order to rule that an action made with the intent of forcing a PC to make a particular decision has an uncertain outcome. Rather than dispute the premise of this position, I argued it as presented, saying that I do not see a suggestion in the rules that the DM ought to “suspend roleplaying” in order to get around the “roleplaying rule.” Is that a bit clearer?

I don't suggest a dichotomy: it is not all or nothing. But look, you continue asking for a special reference to a DM's ability to decide a game mechanic overrides player decisions over what their character thinks, says, and does (suspending roleplaying in that respect.) In doing so, are you able to explain why you ignore how the game is ordinarily played? The DM is incessantly overriding player decisions over what their character thinks, says, and does: if a special carve out were required, it would be for social skills. And I have an idea about why might not notice that.

Thinking about @Swarmkeeper's normal room, here is an attempt to illustrate the idea. A player C creates a fighter and reaches 3rd level, choosing Champion (because as you will see, they are a champ!) The following exchange ensues:

C: I fly over to where the dragons are and...
DM: Um, look, your character cannot fly, maybe if...
C: But don't I get to decide what my character does (points at PHB175)
DM: ...
C: Okay, well if I can't fly there I teleport to...
DM: Sorry, but you also do not have the ability to teleport, would you...
C: Right, I dematerialise the dragons from here then, by thinking at them psionically!
DM: ...

Later
DM: The dwarf claims to know nothing about it, but...
C: I want to know if he's telling the truth!
DM: Okay, you can use your Insight against the dwarf's Deception
C: That's not right - I decide what my character thinks!
DM: Yes, but - your Insight is pretty good and he's willing to answer your, perhaps if you just roll...
C: Nope, there's no uncertainty here, he's lying!!
DM: ...

Much later, C finally encounters a dragon
DM: Okay, so you failed your Wisdom saving throw against Frightful Presence and..
C: Oh no, nope, no way. I decide what my character thinks, says and does, and my character is not frightened - it doesn't affect me. Chaaarrrrge!!!
DM: ...

What I believe you are overlooking is that DMs constantly, as a matter of necessity, in order that the game can function at all override what players decide their characters think, say and do. So far as I can make out, that blindness is caused by compartmentalizing every other case where that happens, from a small set of cases under social interaction. Or here is the question: how do you believe the game works - how are game mechanics applied - if a DM is not expected to ordinarily override a player's freedom to decide their character thinks, says, or does (judiciously suspending some facet of roleplay, in each case)?

The note of difference - and this is highlighted by the normal room example - is that outside of social interaction players habitually go along with that overriding, so that in play it feels more like a constraint on what they choose to do rather that a suspension of roleplay even though it is founded upon a suspension of roleplay. Players don't choose to say that dragon fear doesn't affect them (when they fail their saves), even though it is deciding a fact about how their character thinks.

And that is the difference that I find you and some others here somehow oblivious to. My silly example has a serious intent: I hoped to show how dysfunctional the game will be if a player doesn't come into it with that continuous concession to mechanics already in mind. And that is what is happening in regard to expectations around social interaction: hence I say that they're smuggled into a special category.

I just used that site. In the entire MM there are 8 creatures with intimidate, and half of those are orcs and ultroloths, and 8 with persuasion, 2 of which are Mind Flayers, and 4 of which are dragons. Only 2 other creatures in the entire book have it. And there are over 300 monsters in the book.

In case doubts arise about this, I count 76 MM monsters with one or more of deception, intimidation or persuasion. Using DNDBeyond. Three pages of 20 monsters each, and one of 16. Example, Bone Devil, deception +7, or Adult Green Dragon, deception +8, persuasion +8.

 

[Aldarc]

EDIT: Try again on the attachment....
View attachment 147505

Can it be used one PC to another? If so, I feel it suffers the technical flaw of being able to be used unreasonably an XP generator. One could say - don't use the rules unreasonably - but that is no excuse for badly written rules.

Therefore, is Parley solely NPC to PC?

Yeah, I thought of that as well. I think it is a design flaw, but....I guess I just wouldn't play with people who abused it.

As an addendum, I did run this by Jeremy Strandberg and other Stonetop fans. The general consensus generally fell along several lines: (1) on results of -6 that players make in these situations, GMs should be "establishing badness" and making hard moves against the players; (2) all play should begin and end with the fiction, and it's likely that people who are gaming the system aren't doing as such; and (3) have an adult to adult talk with people who are obviously trying to cheese the system. But I think that the idea that this could be used unreasonably for XP generation is more of a theoretical white room problem that doesn't necessarily reflect the norms of the game.

 

[clearstream]

As an addendum, I did run this by Jeremy Strandberg and other Stonetop fans. The general consensus generally fell along several lines: (1) on results of -6 that players make in these situations, GMs should be "establishing badness" and making hard moves against the players; (2) all play should begin and end with the fiction, and it's likely that people who are gaming the system aren't doing as such; and (3) have an adult to adult talk with people who are obviously trying to cheese the system. But I think that the idea that this could be used unreasonably for XP generation is more of a theoretical white room problem that doesn't necessarily reflect the norms of the game.

I find that disappointing for a few reasons.

1. The text of Parlay in isolation doesn't guide to imposing such badness. Is there a general rule that covers <6?
2. It is a game designer's job to write robust rules, not to impute flaws in the folk they might hope will buy their product. Nor should a game designer dismiss a straight-up bug as a "white room" problem. Once you get to justifying your bugs, you're losing objectivity.
3. Some guiding ideas are 1) listen to your audience, 2) ensure your game works as a game, as well as a roleplaying game, 3) don't dismiss faults found, especially early in production when it is cheapest for you to remedy them.

What they are doing with Parlay is interesting (it's not novel, but it is not business as usual either). If there isn't a general rule, all they likely need to do is spell out in Parlay itself what can happen on a <6.

 

[Aldarc]

I find that disappointing for a few reasons.

1. The text of Parlay in isolation doesn't guide to imposing such badness. Is there a general rule that covers <6?
2. It is a game designer's job to write robust rules, not to impute flaws in the folk they might hope will buy their product. Nor should a game designer dismiss a straight-up bug as a "white room" problem. Once you get to justifying your bugs, you're losing objectivity.
3. Some guiding ideas are 1) listen to your audience, 2) ensure your game works as a game, as well as a roleplaying game, 3) don't dismiss faults found, especially early in production when it is cheapest for you to remedy them.

What they are doing with Parlay is interesting (it's not novel, but it is not business as usual either). If there isn't a general rule, all they likely need to do is spell out in Parlay itself what can happen on a <6.

I suspect you are looking at this tiny snippet of "Parley (vs. PCs)" that @Bill Zebub posted in isolation from the rest of the game rules, principles, and advice. Are you familiar with how Dungeon World (or PbtA) works? If you are not familiar with how DW works - as seems to be the case when asking about a general rule that covers <6 - then it seems a bit premature, if not odd, to declare that you have found a flaw, fault, or a bug in the game design and then proceed to berate the shortcomings of the game and the designer. To do so, IMHO, would indeed be a user-error flaw.

Also, for the record, the designer did not impute flaws in anybody nor did they dismiss this as a theoretical white room problem: I did, and only the latter.