D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

“I told you what he does, it’s up to you how intimidating your character finds it.

Yes, because my players are generally there to play D&D, not to win an argument on the internet, so when when I ask them they do, they generally describe an action.

those two statements togather I find so funny

But “intimidate him” doesn’t tell me what the characters actually do in the game world. Now, many DMs are fine with leaving such details abstract. And that’s fine. Me, I prefer players to describe a goal and an approach with reasonable specificity, both to aid everyone in visualizing the narrative action, and moreover, to aid me in determining whether the action wouos succeed, if it would fail, or if the outcome is uncertain and requires an ability check to resolve that uncertainty.

yea specific vs abstract is a whole nother argument, and one I really don't feel like going around with you (I am fine with either based on the situation and the player)

 

[Voadam]

The closest to an affirmative statement authorizing more than just roleplaying is probably from pages 185 and 186.

Page 185:

Social interactions have two primary aspects: roleplaying and ability checks.

Page 186:

In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.
Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC's attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC's reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM's discretion.

 

[HammerMan]

Yep, this is pointless. Bye.

you arre the one argueing that common usage of UP can mean Down?

 

[HammerMan]

I see you've tweaked the scale to suit your style.
But my question was: how do you set the actual DC for an NPC trying to socially influence a PC? That is, which number do you then choose from your table for the NPC to beat? Is it based on some characteristic of the PC? Something else?

Oh I let the PC pick that. I also sometimes let my PCs pick other DCs too.

like one game during a really drawn out fight with a demon dragon thing in a volcanic area a PC asked how hard it would be to get more distance out of his jump. I told him set a DC and a skill and roll... he went with DC15 acrobatics, and made it, jumping farther then the rules would normally allow (By doing a spin mid air). I would have been as OKAY if he made it Arcana DC 12 and called it a double jump... but again that is becuse I normally play in a group of DMs

and since this has to be spelled out, yes, this is still me descusing the house rule part.

 

[Charlaquin]

The closest to an affirmative statement authorizing more than just roleplaying is probably from pages 185 and 186.

Page 185:

Social interactions have two primary aspects: roleplaying and ability checks.

Page 186:

In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.
Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC's attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC's reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM's discretion.

So, I still don’t see anything here that explicitly contradicts the rule that players decide what their characters do, and in fact, it appears to specifically be about how to determine an NPC’s reaction to a PC’s social actions, not vice versa. If this is the best supporting evidence in favor of the position that the rules for ability checks make a PC’s reaction to a social action taken by an NPC uncertain, I feel quite confident in saying that position is not logically sound.

 

[Lanefan]

One approach I have been considering is to think about it more in terms of control of information. The parties then decide how they will act on beliefs informed by said information. (So the roll doesn't force them to feel frightened, it delivers to them frightening information.)

• Example, for intimidation, a successful check means that the threat is presented as real. I won't tell the players that they think the orc is scary. I will tell them that so far as they can make out, this orc is an unusually powerful member of its polity and has backup very near by. Whether or not that is true, that is how it is presented.

One problem with this approach is that every social skill might then be seen as deception. That might be disambiguated by each skill having distinct requirements, results, and possible downsides. For example:

• Persuasion needs something they want. Persuaded creatures act freely and usually in good faith (they may have their own agenda). They seldom feel umbrage if the attempt fails.
• Intimidation needs something they fear. Intimidated creatures do exactly as you demand, while seeking opportunities to escape or undermine you.
• Deception needs false promises or threats. Tricked creatures behave according to your approach (i.e., persuaded, or intimidated). They are frequently hostile if they discover the truth.
• Performance needs props or devices, and is used to attract, distract, or imitate. If seen through, common reactions are repulsion or expulsion.

So to contrast persuading with intimidating, a successful check makes it clear that the orc will step away from the watch post if given 10gp or the bolt of colourful fabric they were hoping to procure for that price. It doesn't force the orc to step away, so it could be that the outcome of a successful check is to learn that there really isn't anything that could persuade this orc to shirk their duty.

All very fine, but do all these work the same when used against PCs, either by an NPC or another PC? If yes, that's good for consistency but not so good for player agency. If no, then you've missed my point I think.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Oh I let the PC pick that. I also sometimes let my PCs pick other DCs too.

like one game during a really drawn out fight with a demon dragon thing in a volcanic area a PC asked how hard it would be to get more distance out of his jump. I told him set a DC and a skill and roll... he went with DC15 acrobatics, and made it, jumping farther then the rules would normally allow (By doing a spin mid air). I would have been as OKAY if he made it Arcana DC 12 and called it a double jump... but again that is becuse I normally play in a group of DMs

and since this has to be spelled out, yes, this is still me descusing the house rule part.

Interesting. A bit like the player determining how they want their PC to think, act, or speak. But house ruled with more dice rolls and the player setting the DC where they think appropriate.

Do you ever have to intervene to tell the player their DC is inappropriate?

 

[Maxperson]

Oh, I have my sliding scale start at 11 not 5. If something is easy enough but still might fail it is 11. I then go up in groups of 3.

so easy 11
kinda easy but kinda worried 14
moderate 17
kinda moderate to hard 20
hard 23
very hard 26
almost impossible 29.... and if you get 10 over (depending on the check) I will from time to time provide a bigger boost.

I also have my own rule about going over 30 litterally can become magical.

Holy hell. So "easy" is something the average person is going to fail 50% of the time.

 

[Maxperson]

Perfect! Now that’s what I call an action declaration! So, since this question is about how to resolve checks, let’s assume this NPC is the kind of person who wouldn’t automatically be cowed by this (though in other situations success without a roll or even failure without a roll might be more appropriate - depends on the NPC’s personality). I would then ask you to make a DC X Charisma check (with X being his passive Wisdom save), to which intimidation would absolutely be applicable, with advantage since you’re working together. On a success, he’ll agree to give you the dog for 2gp. On a failure, he’ll try to run away, screaming for the guards.

Sounds good except for one thing. If my PC walked into a pet store and the clerk wasn't intimidated by that, I'd be the one intimidated, because he's probably a retired Grand Master of Flowers or Archmage

 

[Fenris-77]

Huh. I really don't care about white-rooming a RAW reading of the rules. NPCs don't get to influence PCs with social abilities in my games. YMMV, of course.