D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[clearstream]

Quote where it SPECIFICALLY overrides the player rule.

It no more says that it overrides the player rule, than the charm spell or menacing attack do. It doesn't need to, because game mechanics can override player choice. In discourse on games, it is usually acknowledged that player makes themselves subject to rules. They do so in order to enjoy the experience that is thereby constituted.

As to that, I am not so convinced now that it even is a rule. In context, the text I can find is an explanation of how to roleplay.

 

[Lyxen]

In fact, when I do get to play a character rather than DM, there is nothing that feels to me like nails on a chalkboard (we all remember chalkboards, right?) than the DM describing my characters reaction to something. Damage, forced movement, conditions, all that is fine. But once they start narrating my PC's internal reaction - how my PC is thinking, speaking, or acting in response to some stimuli - I've become a passive participant watching the DM's story unfold. IMO, of course.

That's up to you, but how do you react to "the NPC seems absolutely truthful", or the "NPC does not do a good job of appearing truthful" ? There is no mandate about how you react, but will you say that this has no influence on how your character will behave ?

 

[Lyxen]

If it were everyone, it would say everyone. All the NPCs are different someones.

And the PCs are someones too. Sorry, all the rest are just examples.

Sure. The DM gets to decide auto success/failure or in doubt for his NPCs just the same as the player does for his PC.

So no difference, we agree.

Yeah. Circumstances change everything. The NPC pet store clerk will likely give in to whatever the PCs demand with no roll. The hulking mercenary all by himself might be intimidated enough to back away, sword on hand, letting the part know that he won't stop them, but if they drop to take his stuff or do anything that the fight is on. That same mercenary with 8 of his buddies might be an auto failure on the part of the PCs to intimidate. Why would the be intimidated by some punks that they outnumber? And of course, as you point out, the intimidation doesn't mean that the plotting stops.

Exactly, it just provides information and (hopefully) good roleplay.

 

[clearstream]

There's no contradiction here. The DM can't determine the chance of failure. It stops right there.

PHB Introduction - The DM listens to every player, and decides how to resolve those actions.

Or DMG5 - addressing the DM - How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you.

The DM decides. It's up to them. If the DM decides it is uncertain, then it is uncertain. That reigns over every other rule (and the designers say as much in several places.)

 

[HammerMan]

That's not true, either. Read the Monsters and Death section which carves out specific exceptions to that.

wait... that is what I said, it is the ONLY carve out...

 

[HammerMan]

That's an assumption, not a fact.

so I am assuming they thought through the game, didn't carve out an exception to monster/np skills, and gave them skills.

you assume they just didin't think about it, and hid some rule in the prefex of "what is role playing"

 

[clearstream]

Is anyone relying on text other than PHB185 as their citation of a "rule" that players determine how their character thinks, acts and talks?

I ask because I went back and read this in context, and there it is not presented as a general - and I dare say crucial - rule. It is presented as an explanation of how you go about roleplaying. Has anyone a more powerful reference?

 

[iserith]

That's just because you formulate things that way, but I can create lots of checks which are pretty important (and I noticed that you have not responded to my Deception example). Moreover, this is one reason for which the intent is not required by the rules, just the description of the actions.

• Appear intimidating to the PC.
• Deceive the PC into believing something.
• Appear convincing to the PC.

Of course, the player can decide what he is doing, but he will do so based on the information available, just as he would do for something purely "physical" in the game world, for example he will believe that he can climb a wall.

And there is no difference with an NPC, the player can succeed at deception check and still fail to deceive the NPC, because the NPC knows something the player does not for example.

There's no task there. It's just description. It's part of step 1 of the play loop - describing the environment. You don't need to make a check to have an NPC present a lie to the PCs. You might make a check as part of a contest IF the players say they want to assess the NPC's body language and mannerisms to determine truthfulness, but there's no need otherwise. Just say what the NPC says. If you think they're a good liar, they say it smoothly while looking in the PCs' eyes, for example. If you think they're a bad liar, they stutter, fidget, and don't make eye contact. If they're a really, really good liar, they do the latter while telling the PCs the truth. No need to roll for flavor. Do it if you like, but it's not an ability check.

 

[iserith]

PHB Introduction - The DM listens to every player, and decides how to resolve those actions.

Or DMG5 - addressing the DM - How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you.

The DM decides. It's up to them. If the DM decides it is uncertain, then it is uncertain. That reigns over every other rule (and the designers say as much in several places.)

The DM cannot determine how a PC thinks, acts, or talks.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

That's up to you, but how do you react to "the NPC seems absolutely truthful", or the "NPC does not do a good job of appearing truthful" ? There is no mandate about how you react, but will you say that this has no influence on how your character will behave ?

The player is free to roleplay that however they wish. Which really depends on context of the scene, I would think.
Is there an implication that the player must play out their PC's reaction to that information in a particular way?