D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Let's try it another way then, an NPC tries to deceive a PC, and as the DM you don't know how well he will perform in his deception, so the result is clearly uncertain.

I don’t need to know how well he performs. I’ll describe the action (the lie), and if the player suspects it’s a lie, they can describe an action to try and determine if it is or not. At that point (assuming the player’s approach could succeed or fail), I’ll call for them to make an ability check, probably Wisdom (Insight) contested by Charisma (Deception). If the player succeeds, I’ll give them whatever information they were saying they were trying to learn with their action (as established by the goal they stated). On a failure I won’t. Either way, the player is free to decide how their character thinks and feels about that information (or lack of information) and if and how they act on it.

 

[Charlaquin]

In your view, is it only social skills that are not actions? Or all skills?

All skills. Skills are a source of bonuses.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well…I think it’s fair game for the DM to factor skill proficiency (or expertise) into the decision of whether there is uncertainty. The character with Arcana and the character with Acrobatics might be granted automatic success in different situations.

Sure. I’d call that a part of the fictional positioning. A character who lacks certain specialized training may not have a chance of success on an action that someone who has that training would have a chance of success at, and a character who has certain specialized training might not have a chance of failure on an action that a character who lacks that training would have a chance of failure at.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don’t need to know how well he performs. I’ll describe the action (the lie), and if the player suspects it’s a lie, they can describe an action to try and determine if it is or not. At that point (assuming the player’s approach could succeed or fail), I’ll call for them to make an ability check, probably Wisdom (Insight) contested by Charisma (Deception). If the player succeeds, I’ll give them whatever information they were saying they were trying to learn with their action (as established by the goal they stated). On a failure I won’t. Either way, the player is free to decide how their character thinks and feels about that information (or lack of information) and if and how they act on it.

And, as I keep saying (but nobody ever responds), since the DM controls the game world why would they rely on dice rolls to force the players to pretend to be intimidated/persuaded/deceived? If you want the players to feel intimidated, use an intimidating monster.

 

[clearstream]

@Charlaquin I'd like to get this straight. You put forward that

1. All skills are not actions, they’re a source of bonuses on a subset of ability checks.
2. Ability checks are not actions, they’re a step in the action resolution process; a step which comes after determining uncertainty, if uncertainty is established.
3. An action that is resolved by the general action resolution process can either succeed (if it has no chance of failure or no stakes), fail (if it has no chance of success), or be resolved with an ability check.
4. An action taken with the goal of forcing a PC to think, feel, or do something succeeds if the player decides it does, or fails if the player decides it does.
5. There is no opportunity for an ability check of any kind to be made, because based on the goal, the process for resolving it says it should succeed or fail.
6. If a more specific process governs the resolution of the action, such as the spellcasting rules, then none of this is relevant to the resolution process of that action.

So I think here you are claiming that other kinds of game action resolution have more specific processes - specific enough to form an exception to the putative general rule. You seem to be saying that the spellcasting resolution system is specific enough, while the ability checks system is not specific enough. That's why spells get a free pass on 4., right? Concretely, 4. stands as a gatekeeper for every game process that wants to support mechanical instances that override the putative general rule. Generally, you are claiming that several game resolution system are specific enough but not ability checks.

It hadn't occurred to me to suppose that the test to be an exception was made at the game process level. I count it made at the process-instance level, which is where game mechanics impact on and are availed of by players. However, were we to wonder if an overall game resolution process could be specific enough, then I don't agree that the ability check process is any less specific than the others.

 

[Maxperson]

While I agree in general, I would reiterate that it's more clever than this. Yes, the player decides, but based on the information that he has. And, to make it simple with the easiest example (there are many others but this one is by far the easiest both to understand and to rule since it's a contest with no fixed DC), the result of the deception check of an NPC trying to lie to a PC (and beat his insight, whether active or passive) and the associated description from the DM will certainly inflence the way the PC decides. It's not black and white.

For sure. The player is free to decide based on his knowledge. That can be influenced, but not forced. He can decide that he thinks an NPC is lying or telling the truth and he may be wrong. What I can't do with the social skills is require his PC to think one or the other based on a roll. Skills are not mind control.

 

[Aldarc]

Without having any knowledge or experience of PbtA games myself, I assume that an effort to "press or entice" a PC has the goal of influencing that character such that they do what the character making such effort wants them to do. A binding successful result on a check to test such an effort would have the PC compelled to submit to the will of the other character, which is problematic if we hold that a PC's actions are governed by its player.

If, on the other hand, an effort is made to discover what it would take to persuade the PC, then I think a Wisdom (Insight) check might be appropriate to resolve that effort.

Without getting too bogged down into PbtA frameworks, a successful "check" on a Persuade (vs. PC) in Stonetop, broadly speaking, gives the target PC the choice to either (1) agree to do what the rolling PC wants or (2) reveal what could persuade them, through whatever method of their choice. There is a bit more to it. To "press or entice a PC and they resist" is a condition that must exist in the fiction for the move/check to be triggered. But the check is also dropped if the player of the target PC believes there is nothing that the other PC could do to persuade their character.

One key difference is that Stonetop distinguishes between two types of Persuade: i.e., (vs. NPCs) and (vs. PCs). NPCs would never roll Persuade against PCs in either Stonetop or PbtA games. But two reasons for that is primarily (a) the GM never rolls in PbtA games but also that (b) a failed Presuade (vs. NPCs) roll could involve the NPC turning the tables on the PC.

As to whether that would be Charisma or Wisdom in D&D 5e, I think that the former may reflect sweet talking it out of the target while the latter would reflect discerning it. Stonetop simply uses Charisma to cover the entire range of possibilities.

 

[clearstream]

And, as I keep saying (but nobody ever responds), since the DM controls the game world why would they rely on dice rolls to force the players to pretend to be intimidated/persuaded/deceived? If you want the players to feel intimidated, use an intimidating monster.

I've played it out a few different ways over the years. We've talked about that a bit up thread, but here is a case I have in mind.

The PCs are taken captive in what would otherwise have been a TPK (as often advised in official published material.) The NPCs want to pry crucial information from them, which the whole party have promised one another to withhold. We're not interested in torture-porn so we have no interest in narrating the process in any detail. Each player is now put in an awkward position? What decides if their character spills or not? In the end, the players found it to be a relief that I let the dice decide. It made perfect sense to them that they might have been able to say nothing, but there was a chance they would break. It avoided any player having to intentionally do something that might have felt at odds with their commitment to the party.

This certainly isn't the only way to run the situation, yet unless the situation is something a group are anxious to narrate, it is a decent way to do it. I wouldn't mind a DM saying - yes C you hold out as long as you can and - make a roll - you give up the location of the prince on the 3rd day. If a DM asked me if I caved, I think I'd prefer to roll, in most cases.

 

[Maxperson]

Previously, it seemed you bestowed a kind of inviolable certainty on things falling within the definition of roleplaying. You argued that for a DM to be working within the rules required that DM to have a basis for their judgments as to uncertainty. It occurs to me to that for consistency you ought to believe that to be working within the rules a DM must also have a basis for their judgments as to stakes? Is that right? Or is there a lack of parity in those requirements?

Anyway, as it turns out, that certainty is often violated within the game rules. Thus, within the game paradigm, a DM is justified to say that things falling within the definition of roleplaying can be uncertain.

Can you give an example of that certainty being violated in a way that matches social skills vs player making the decision?

We can make arguments from consequence in play, preference, what we understand to be norms, but you need to produce RAW additional to the above to support any claim that a game mechanic like deception is not specific enough.

No she doesn't need to produce additional RAW. You do. The Specific Beats General RAW is very clear that there needs to be a SPECIFIC exception or contradiction, not one you want to be there. Heck, even an implied exception fails to be specific enough.

You've made the assertion that a vague, "It doesn't forbid it" is specific enough. You need to provide additional RAW to support that, since it goes directly against the Specific Beats General RAW.

Deception specifically calls for a check making it clear that a DM is justified in doing so. That particular forms an exception to any general rule.

Deception calls for no check unless the outcome is in doubt and there is a meaningful consequence for failure. No ability check is made is called for under RAW unless those two conditions are met.

Again, the DM is encouraged to call for a check. The particular here overrides any general elsewhere.

"might ask for a check" is not encouragement to call for a check. It's saying that if you are attempting one of those actions against an NPC, with the outcome in doubt and a meaningful consequence for failure, there would be a check. Those circumstances might occur when attempting one of those actions. If those two circumstances are not present, no check is called for. The DM simply announces success or failure at the deception attempt.

Some questions worth asking are: Where is the RAW that tells us what is specific enough? Where, is the RAW that says it must be a spell to be specific enough? Or that it must reference a condition?

5e uses natural language. So look up specific in the dictionary. It means clearly defined or identified. The vague "It doesn't forbid it" and/or all the vague rules used to imply that it's okay don't clearly define or identify an exception or contradiction. They aren't sufficient to trigger the Specific Beats General rule.

 

[clearstream]

Can you give an example of that certainty being violated in a way that matches social skills vs player making the decision?

I've read your post, and will not reply directly only because I think we have moved the discussion forward from that point. If a detail you raise becomes relevant later, I will try and remember to acknowledge it (and respond there as needed).