D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

It's really no different than rolling dice to see if the orc sneaks up on you. Why is "Nah, I'm not scared" OK and not "Nah, I see the orc"?

So when and where do you draw the line between things the player decides and things the dice decide? How is being scared (or not) different from deciding whether to keep fighting or running away? Or choosing which of two orcs to attack? Or whether to turn left or right in a dungeon?

For me, the dividing line is that players always (unless a rule specifically states otherwise) declare the actions of their characters.

So the DM is free, I guess, to say “you are afraid of the orc.” But since the player still gets to decide what actions to take, the DM’s statement is meaningless.

Now, maybe it was only intended to be a roleplaying cue. As in, you’re still free to take any actions and without penalty, but some narration to reinforce the idea of Scary Orc would be appreciated. If that’s all it means, though, then why roll dice? The DM can narrate Scary Orc and the player can pick up on that and run with it.

And if the fear is, “But what if the player doesn’t play along?” I have two answers:
1) Trust the player to contribute in ways they see fit
2) If they consistently do so in a way that runs you wrong, find new players.

Rules don’t fix table mid-matches

 

[Bill Zebub]

Why is this such an issue with D&D players? Maybe because D&D is basically just a power fantasy, so people get into a Billy Badass mentality when playing? Are we more at fault for trying to inject more elements of in-character simulation in a game that simply isn't really set up to handle it mechanically?

Yeah, I think that’s a big part of it. D&D just isn’t designed for that. I mean, anybody is free to bolt that onto the game, but if you want sanity scores and the like, play games that have them.

 

[Maxperson]

and what does any of that even mean? does it mean the player and I must have a stressfilled battle of wits and wills everytime our characters do? no thank you. I (and at least most people I know) want no more to do with that then larping combat.

It means that you get to say, "The massive orc rushes towards you frothing at the mouth and swinging his axe wildly in an intimidating manner." Then the player gets to decide of his PC is intimidated or not and inform you about what his PC does in response to your description of the environment.

then why give monsters and NPCs sociol skills?

DM: You try your best to persuade the king that withdrawing his army before the Tarrasque arrives is the best course of action, but he steadfastly refuses to hear anything you say.(no roll, because the outcome is certain). You do notice, however, that the kings trusted advisor seems worried about the king's decision.

Players: We wait until the audience is done and see if we can get an audience with the king's advisor.

(RP and rolls if necessary here)

DM: You enter the advisor's chamber and you see him pacing near the window, looking out towards the plain where the army sits.

Players: We speak to him about the deadliness of the Tarrasque and the inability of an army to handle such a legendary beast.

DM: The advisor is easily convinced by your words(no roll as the outcome is certain) and he tells you that he will speak to the king directly and try to persuade him. He tells you that they've been good friends since childhood and the king will sometimes listen to him when he refuses to hear others.

(DM rolls a persuasion check on behalf of the NPC advisor to persuade the NPC king)

That's why they have social skills.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Lots of dice are thrown around in my game. Just not to determine what the character thinks. I don't see how BIFTs are necessarily about "adolescent power fantasies."

That you'd run a cost/benefit analysis in terms of inspiration gain to determine if a core concept of your character came into play indicates it's not a system with a lot of teeth. And again, pure player opt in. In SW for example, the cowardly flaw makes you easier to shake, a low Spirit/Guts makes it harder to recover. Your character can get frightened without your consent because there are story mechanics in place. Compels and temporary aspect placement in Fate work similarly. But god forbid a D&D character suffer temporary disadvantage against something from the Frightened condition though.

 

[Shiroiken]

So not too different from letting the player decide on the outcome when their PC is the target of a social "attack" (not really the right word, but trying to come up with some kind of shorthand for PvP Persuasion/Intimidation/Deception). Other than the DM part and the "bad form" bit, that is.

Pretty much, but it's a choice we've made. Even when magic and other forced effects are put upon us, we go all out RPing it. In one campaign our Dragon Sorceress had her mind altered to become a worshiper of Lolth while they fighting her avatar, and while she played it to the hilt, she came very, very close to killing the rest of the party. Fortunately for them, the effect ended when the avatar did; otherwise she'd have killed them all in another round or so.

The only thing I object to is when somebody starts claiming that other ways are playing are wrong, or "not roleplaying", or whatever, despite lack of textual support.

That's the thing about opinions though. I personally feel this is the correct way of roleplaying, which is why I do it. You play the way that you do because of how you feel is the correct way of roleplaying. That's just how it works. I don't give a crap about anyone's opinion on the matter, just as you really shouldn't care about mine.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've already acknowledged that magical compulsion or the like is an exception a couple times in the thread and even referenced the section of the rules that discusses complications when walking across a room. I doubt anyone disagrees there are limits.

Oh Iserith, I have so missed our back and forth. on weather or not I should allow PCs to use social skills on each other and if my NPCs can use them at all.

 

[iserith]

That you'd run a cost/benefit analysis in terms of inspiration gain to determine if a core concept of your character came into play indicates it's not a system with a lot of teeth. And again, pure player opt in. In SW for example, the cowardly flaw makes you easier to shake, a low Spirit/Guts makes it harder to recover. Your character can get frightened without your consent because there are story mechanics in place. Compels and temporary aspect placement in Fate work similarly. But god forbid a D&D character suffer temporary disadvantage against something from the Frightened condition though.

I don't see why those mechanics would make the game better in D&D. More complex, sure. But better? Probably not in my view.

 

[iserith]

Oh Iserith, I have so missed our back and forth. on weather or not I should allow PCs to use social skills on each other and if my NPCs can use them at all.

Here's another chance to rehash old discussions!

As for whether you should, that's up to you and your group. Whether it's supported by the rules, I would say they aren't.

 

[Charlaquin]

Maybe it's just the years of Cthulhu and Ravenloft speaking, but I'm finding these fearless PC's eyerolling. Other games, like Fate and Savage Worlds have conditions and aspects that NPC's can place on the players, and people just accept it as part of the game. I don't recall anyone whining when their SW character gets Shaken, or they suffer some sanity loss finding a dead body. The rules are there to spackle over the disconnect between player and character. It's super easy to go "yeah yeah, I'll chew on that broken glass to appease the gang members" because it isn't YOU suffering. You ain't afraid of no ghost, but is your character? Grab the dice and roleplay the result.

Why is this such an issue with D&D players? Maybe because D&D is basically just a power fantasy, so people get into a Billy Badass mentality when playing? Are we more at fault for trying to inject more elements of in-character simulation in a game that simply isn't really set up to handle it mechanically?

My players do roleplay their characters being scared and whatnot. I’m also not opposed to mechanics like the ones you’re describing - I loved Conditions in Chronicles of Darkness for example. I just don’t think they’re supported in the rules of D&D 5e. Different games play differently than each other, and that’s good.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's the thing about opinions though. I personally feel this is the correct way of roleplaying,

I guess the difference is that I think there is no such thing as "the correct way", there are just different ways, some of which I find more or less fun.

But it's hard to have a worthwhile discussion with somebody who, while perhaps acknowledging that I'm free to do what I want, also thinks it's "not really roleplaying".