D&D 5E (2014) Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

But I asked a very specific question: do the rules on Intimidate explicitly describe that the skill imposes the Frightened condition on the target?

Huh? What is the relevance of that specific question?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I haven’t abandoned anything. It is true that the text in the players’ handbook describing how skills are used is framed in terms of a PC being the one taking action. It is also true that the DM can make ability checks to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of an NPC’s action, and that the NPC’s proficiency bonus can apply to such an ability check if one of the NPC’s skills or other proficiencies is relevant. It is not true, in my evaluation, that the outcome of an action an NPC takes to try and socially influence a PC is uncertain.

Indeed it doesn’t, but the outcome of such an action would not be uncertain either.

The DM certainly can decide that the outcome of an action made to socially influence a player character is uncertain, just as the DM can decide that the outcome of an action made to harm the player character physically is not uncertain. However, I do not see support in the rules for the DM doing either.

How Charisma checks work is the DM calls for them when the outcome of an action made to influence another character is uncertain. The player’s handbook expresses this to the player as, “A charisma check might arise when you try to influence or entertain others, when you try to make an impression or tell a convincing lie, or when you are navigating a tricky social situation.” Those are all examples of times a player could expect the DM to call for a Charisma check. They are not exhaustive, and they are not the only cases a Charisma check might be used, but they are sufficient to communicate to the player when they may be called upon to make such a check. They do not seem to support the idea that the DM ought to make such a check when an NPC takes an action meant to socially influence a player.

I don’t know what you’re going on about with rules having teeth or bites. None of the rules of D&D have teeth, the rules go out of their way to tell you to ignore them if you want to. And I’m not saying people shouldn’t do so. I’m saying, I don’t see support in the rules for the DM making an ability check when an NPC tries to socially influence a PC. Folks can (and regularly do) do things without the rules’ support, and that’s fine.

I think you are getting the wrong idea about what I’m saying. “My side” is that the rules don’t seem to instruct the DM to make an ability check to resolve an NPC’s attempt to socially influence a PC. If one were to argue that the rules don’t say the DM shouldn’t make an ability check to resolve an NPC’s attempt to socially influence a PC, I would have no objection. But people have been trying to argue that the rules do tell the DM to make an ability check to resolve an NPC’s attempt to socially influence a PC. And so far, I have not seen very convincing arguments in support of that position.

What are you talking about? Of course arguments can be wrong.

When the rules say “ignore these rules if you feel like it,” I see no point in arguing about what is or isn’t a “wrong way to play in relation to the rules.” The rules permit everything, no position that something isn’t allowed by the rules really holds up. I am instead taking a position on what the rules support. By the rules, you don’t have to follow the rules, but there are some things the rules will support you in doing, and some things you’re on your own with. I believe that the DM making ability checks to resolve actions made to socially influence PCs is the latter category of thing.

No, since the rules say you can ignore them, you are not playing incorrectly by the rules. You are, however, playing in a way the rules don’t support. You’re voiding the warranty, in a sense.

Agreed.

It would be helpful if you'd stop Fisking. I'm not delivering a Gish Gallop, so separating sentences that are thematically connected is really just looking to isolate and defeat in turn rather than deal with the argument as a whole. This is apparent throughout as the only argument you're really putting forward is that you like your assumption and are using it as a club while ignoring any other issues that arise from it.

For example, in the first exchange the structure of your argument is that:
Assumption: All text is rules unless specifically called out otherwise.
Assertion: Ability checks are all written from the stance of the PCs taking action.
Conclusion: Monsters can also use ability checks despite no rules text indicating this, just not specific ones.

There are numerous problems with this. The one I was addressing was that there is no logical result from the assumptions and assertions that can result in that conclusion. You've smuggled in additional assumptions but not stated them. It's a bad argument. However, the larger problem for your argument is that the opening for the Ability checks specifically says they can be used by both the PCs and the Monsters. No special carve out is made for any of the six abilities or their associated proficiencies. In short, this entire argument is flawed at the assertion level.

This means that we're back to dealing with your assumption with regards to the single sentence in the Roleplaying section of the DMG (not even the PHB, so a player not reading the DMG is unaware of this critical rule and a GM that hasn't scrutinized the text for oddly placed rules would similarly be unaware of this critical rule). And the rest of your post follows this argument. You claim that your assumption makes the least hash of the rest of the rules, except I'm not sure it doesn't. For one, we have to take this single sentence and read it back into the entirety of the rest of the rules such that in a step where multiple places in the text the GM is assigned the job of determining uncertainty we have to consider this one sentence is a strong and inviolable constraint on the GM's responsibility. Yet it's not mentioned in any of these places at all. Instead, we have additional rules information that does tell us monsters use CHA ability checks in exactly the same way as PCs. We have rules information that tells us that success on these abilities for both monsters and PCs is the same. Granted, we have additional information for NPCs that we do not have for PCs for how these can interact, but this doesn't obviate the multitude of other rules that indicate parity between PCs and NPCs and also how the text fails to note this critical limitation on the GM in the multiple places it talks about how the GM determines uncertainty and resolves it.

In short, your argument that your reading makes the most sense has to overcome the problem that it relies on taking a single sentence from a section not about running the game but about how players can engage in roleplaying and extrapolates that into a binding constraint on the GM that's not mentioned in the at least 4 other places I can think of that the part of the basic play loop relating to the GM determining uncertainty is discussed in detail. The argument also has to deal with the fact that this kind of reading (all text is rules unless specifically excluded by the text) leads to numerous other contradictions and confusion points. It also directly flies in the face of the natural language approach the developers have been clear about where conversational styles were adopted in large sections of the book that are not meant to be read as explicit rules.

My suggestion would be to abandon the claim that you have the most bestest epistemologically sound argument. It relies on assumption as much as any other, and has to engage in special pleading for the conflicts it creates as well. I don't disagree with your conclusion -- social skills working on PCs is icky, involves GM Czege violations, and steps hard on the narrow front of player agency in 5e. There are plenty of good reasons to not allow this. Heck, even your reading of the rules is a good and solid reason. Claiming it's the most bestest logical reading, though, it kinda out-of-bounds. It's a reasonable reading, but it's not as solid as you seem to think it is.

Finally, to drive home the point about social skills and the problem with the Roleplaying Rule -- insight vs deception. If the PC is declaring an action to get a read on an NPC, that can be resolved by the PC's Insight vs the NPC's Deception. The result informs the PC of how their character thinks on the topic. Yes, I'm aware that you can take pains to carefully state the result in a way that doesn't directly tell the player how their PC thinks, but that's just a smokescreen, because the player is fundamentally asking to resolve what their PC thinks of the NPC. Unless you stick to just describing facial tics and eye shifts, in which case you're either encoding the same info into a puzzle for the PC or just providing largely useless information the player can't reconcile, the result of this check will be telling the player something their PC thinks. And this is a specifically allowed interaction in the rules, so it's 100% under the "all text is rules" assumption. We now have to engage in some form of special pleading to excuse this violation of the rule (probably under some form of "specific defeats general" which then opens new fronts against why CHA checks, being more specific, don't overrule the Roleplaying Rule). There are logical holes all over this argument as well. It's not really the argument's fault, though, 5e is written in a loose manner that defies strict interpretation. I happen to agree in large part with the approach you employ, I just can't stand behind this argument to support it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Whether or not to get pushed is not something you can decide. It happens to you, or it doesn’t. What to do when someone threatens you is something you can (and must) decide. I don’t understand how the difference could be the least bit unclear.

You've looked at the shove from the point of view that it has already happened while trying to argue the threat from the point of view that you can just decide it doesn't happen. I don't think it follows that we, as people, just get to always decide if we're threatened or not, and I don't think it follows that PCs do as well. There's are many effects in the game that impose the Frightened conditions, for instance, and many of those involve a threat of some kind (violence, overwhelming dread, etc). So, even in the game we're okay with our PCs being successfully threatened, at least in some cases. If we look, then, at both of these cases from the fact that there's a test of some kind to determine if the shove/threat is successful, then in both cases the player is constrained by this success in future action declarations. They are constrained from moving freely while prone, for instance, and, in the case of the actual Frightened condition, constrained in what they can do. Sure, a frightened character can think that their brave all they want, but they can't approach the source of their fear and have disadvantage while they can see that source. We we're going to say that this is not an indication of the PC's feelings, I feel we're badly unmoored from any form of inhabiting the shared fiction like the rest of the Roleplaying section says we should be.

So, if we're okay with the same structure of test to impose effect that limits future action declarations in the case of a fear effect and a shove, then we're on very unstable ground to build a foundation that any other kind of threat is something that cannot impose any limitations. We need to move outside this argument to find a reason that a threat without a frightened condition rider is just up to the PC to decide. We cannot stand on these things (a shove and a threat) being so different that one is obviously a constraint while the other cannot be.

 

[clearstream]

Meaning that they succeed in their goal - or not - for most ability checks, right? That is, most ability checks are binary in that they have a success state and they have a failure state. Do you agree that's how the 5e rules generally portray ability checks?

I don't agree. Many are more nuanced than that.

 

[HammerMan]

Agreed.

okay, a starting point of understanding

Meaning that they succeed in their goal - or not - for most ability checks, right?

yes and no. it is success in what the skill/ability can do, not nessescaraly ANYTHING the player narrates... back in 4e we had a PC joke about "Push ups for insight" becuse they could then make a str+athletics check... they even had a thing on there phone about how exersise increaed blood flow and let you think clearer... we still joke about it many (too many don't make an old man count) years later.

That is, most ability checks are binary in that they have a success state and they have a failure state.

most yes, there are some times that there are 'degree' of success but then we would be WAY into the weeds of house rules and rulings and lots of getting off toppic, for this purpose YES.

Do you agree that's how the 5e rules generally portray ability checks?

yeah, climb a tree (if check is needed) str+athletics. you either climb or not. Arcana check to remember a mystic note on sigils you either remember or not. Persusasion check to make a persuasive argument you either do or don't make a persuasive argument.

no matter how much I narrate I climb a tree to find a clue, if there is not clue there I succseed in the climb and find nothing
no matter how much i narrate I remember the not on mystic sigils, but if that doesn't tell me who the caster is, remembering succseeded but didin't help
no matter how persuasive an argument I make, all I as the player (or DM) can do is be persuasive, not then say how the other (PC/NPC/Monster) reacts.

If you intimidate a kobold to tell you where the treasure is, then yeah 99% of the time the normal clear thought is intimidate, tell him... If you intimidate the LT of the town guard to let you by, you might make him yell for help... you Intimidated successfully both times, but once it didn't give you the result you wanted..


real world example: when I was in my 20's (you know back with the dinosaurs) my mother called me and told me how upset she was about something my sister had done to her by a boyfriend. I was persuaded to drive to his house calling 2 friends to meet me there and threaten his life in a highly illegal way (and tbf what he did was wrong, and evil, but not a crime). My goal was to make him stop the behavior... I found out later my mom only wanted me to call my sister at her house to consol her. He broke up with her calling her many names and saying I was crazy (fair by his POV in retrospect). My mom persuaded me to do something, I intimidated him to do something... what I did and what he did was NOT the end result we were looking for (although again in retrospect i think it was foreseeable)


success in a skill (or defaulting to an attribute) is ONLY that, you can state your intention and the DM/Player can take in under advisement, but that doesn't FORCE anyone to do anything.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't agree. Many are more nuanced than that.

Without one of the optional plugins, the only two outcomes of an ability check are that you succeed at the check or you fail at the check. They are binary. Whether or not this resolves a scene or obstacle isn't being claimed. If I know I have five climb checks to get up the Cliffs of Ill Mental Health and I roll the first one, the result is success or failure on that check but a success won't find me at the top of the Cliffs. It is still a binary outcome.

 

[HammerMan]

I don't agree. Many are more nuanced than that.

nuanced... the one thing I learn is all of you are better at useing and thinking up words then me. I wrote a paragraph and bullet point examples you got it in one... nuanced.

 

[HammerMan]

Without one of the optional plugins, the only two outcomes of an ability check are that you succeed at the check or you fail at the check. They are binary. Whether or not this resolves a scene or obstacle isn't being claimed. If I know I have five climb checks to get up the Cliffs of Ill Mental Health and I roll the first one, the result is success or failure on that check but a success won't find me at the top of the Cliffs. It is still a binary outcome.

see my above examples (and my fail at useing multi quote

yeah, climb a tree (if check is needed) str+athletics. you either climb or not. Arcana check to remember a mystic note on sigils you either remember or not. Persusasion check to make a persuasive argument you either do or don't make a persuasive argument.

no matter how much I narrate I climb a tree to find a clue, if there is not clue there I succseed in the climb and find nothing
no matter how much i narrate I remember the not on mystic sigils, but if that doesn't tell me who the caster is, remembering succseeded but didin't help
no matter how persuasive an argument I make, all I as the player (or DM) can do is be persuasive, not then say how the other (PC/NPC/Monster) reacts.

If you intimidate a kobold to tell you where the treasure is, then yeah 99% of the time the normal clear thought is intimidate, tell him... If you intimidate the LT of the town guard to let you by, you might make him yell for help... you Intimidated successfully both times, but once it didn't give you the result you wanted..


real world example: when I was in my 20's (you know back with the dinosaurs) my mother called me and told me how upset she was about something my sister had done to her by a boyfriend. I was persuaded to drive to his house calling 2 friends to meet me there and threaten his life in a highly illegal way (and tbf what he did was wrong, and evil, but not a crime). My goal was to make him stop the behavior... I found out later my mom only wanted me to call my sister at her house to consol her. He broke up with her calling her many names and saying I was crazy (fair by his POV in retrospect). My mom persuaded me to do something, I intimidated him to do something... what I did and what he did was NOT the end result we were looking for (although again in retrospect i think it was foreseeable)

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Huh? What is the relevance of that specific question?

You were trying to equate Menacing Attack to an attempt to socially intimidate. No?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I don't agree. Many are more nuanced than that.

How so? Perhaps you misunderstand my point, and I yours. That is to say, beating the DC on an ability check results in the DM granting you success in the goal that you defined for your PC while failing to beat the DC on an ability check results in the DM imposing the failure state. Hence, pass/fail. In other words, any nuance comes in the narrated result, not in the beating or not beating the DC.