D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

If I'm doing an adequate job of describing the environment, which I should be doing as DM since that's part of my role, how the orc tries to intimidate the PC will be evident in the description. It's up to the player to decide how they respond. From the perspective of adjudicating the action the orc is taking, the outcome of the attempt at intimidation is certain - whatever the player says is the outcome. So there's no roll needed here.

so you agree that DMs that use the roll to describe are doing there jobs to "describe the environment"

 

[iserith]

A DM/group would be completely justified under 5e RAW in saying a skill check does not tell a PC how to act, they determine their own thoughts and actions. There is also support for an interpretation that a skill check can affect PCs and there can be a table understanding to roleplay out check results the same as if magic induced an influence on the character.

Thanks for posting related sections of the rules, but I can see nothing that overrides what I bolded in the quote above.

People are free to play how they wish, of course. I see no support at all, however, for uncertainty as to the outcome when it comes to how players respond to attempts to deceive, persuade, or intimidate their characters, given how the rules state clearly that it's up to the player to determine this. No uncertainty, no roll. The player decides.

Some DMs may roll to answer the question of "How intimidating is this monster?" instead of "Does the monster intimidate the PC?" but I find this to be outsourcing the DM's role of describing the environment to the dice. There's no need for it in my view.

 

[iserith]

so you agree that DMs that use the roll to describe are doing there jobs to "describe the environment"

Not as stated by the rules, no. The roll is used to adjudicate an action when the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. There's no uncertainty in the question of whether an orc intimidates a player character since the player always decides. No uncertainty, no roll.

Plenty of DMs do as you say though. I don't. There's no need for it if I'm adequately describing how the orc attempts to intimidate the PC (for example).

 

[HammerMan]

Some DMs may roll to answer the question of "How intimidating is this monster?" instead of "Does the monster intimidate the PC?" but I find this to be outsourcing the DM's role of describing the environment to the dice. There's no need for it in my view.

fancy words for "i don't like it" but you admit it is a valid way to play?

 

[Charlaquin]

so you agree that DMs that use the roll to describe are doing there jobs to "describe the environment"

I’m can’t speak for Iserith, but in my understanding, it’s not the role of the dice to describe the environment. The dice are used to resolve uncertainty in the outcomes of actions.

Certainly, a DM could use a dice roll to inform their description of the environment if they wanted to, but I personally think the game benefits a great deal from clarity and consistency in how the dice are used.

 

[Charlaquin]

fancy words for "i don't like it" but you admit it is a valid way to play?

There are no invalid ways to play.

 

[HammerMan]

I’m can’t speak for Iserith, but in my understanding, it’s not the role of the dice to describe the environment. The dice are used to resolve uncertainty in the outcomes of actions.

Certainly, a DM could use a dice roll to inform their description of the environment if they wanted to, but I personally think the game benefits a great deal from clarity and consistency in how the dice are used.

and I agree. the dice (and stat and skill prof) determine how intimadating something is, not how well I describe it, or how well I know what would trigger a laugh or a jump from my buddy across the table. So I AM using the dice with clarity and consistency... there is a question "How intimadating is the orc?" the answer is 1d20+cha+intim skill +/- any circumstances...

 

[iserith]

fancy words for "i don't like it" but you admit it is a valid way to play?

Those words aren't very fancy. But any way a given group wants to play is a valid way to play. You could spend the entire session using the rules for Shadowrun and call it D&D for all I care.

But is this way supported by the rules? No, not in my view. That doesn't make it less valid if that's what you are your group want to do.

 

[HammerMan]

But is this way supported by the rules? No, not in my view. That doesn't make it less valid if that's what you are your group want to do.

it is only supported or not based on your choice or reading of what is uncertain.

 

[Bill Zebub]

so you agree that...

I'm wary of ANY post that begins that way.