D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Charlaquin]

Yes you do, see below, since you end up granting the NPC a Charisma (Deception) check in the end.

That just tells me success or failure, which is all I need to know.

And the problem by doing this is that you are equating yourself as a DM to the NPC you are controlling, which is not what roleplaying is about. NPCs are limited by their skills and abilities like PCs are, which is one thing that is sometimes not too hard to do when it's diminishing your abilities, but just impossible to do when the NPC abilities are greater than yours. For example, I know that I am incredibly clever and so charismatic (not to mention an incredible liar ), but even I would not dare compare myself to an Archdevil in terms of persuasion.

Taking into account these abilities in your roleplaying of the NPC is as much what roleplaying is about as it is doing the same thing for a player playing his PC.

This is a fundamental philosophical difference we have on roleplaying, and not really relevant to the topic at hand. Suffice to say, I’m not of the opinion that it’s possible to “play characters who are smarter (or in this case better liars) than you,” nor that how “smart (or deceptive) your character is compared to you really matters.

You are of course free to totally reverse things this way, but it's not what the RAW is saying. First, in the introduction to the PH, it says that the DM has actions, so the action was the NPC lying to the PC, which should be resolved first.

The action was resolved without need for a roll. The NPC told a lie. If the PC takes an action to try and discern whether or not the NPC’s statement is a lie, a roll might or might be required to resolve that action; depends on the specifics of the approach.

To be clear, I do not believe this is the only way to resolve this scenario that’s supported by the rules. You could also roll a Charisma (Deception) check against the PC’s passive Wisdom (Insight) score, for example, and I believe you would have the support of the rules in doing so.

And yet, they will have been influenced by the Charisma (Deception) check of the NPC, and this while leaving the player 100% free to decide...

You say that like you think it’s in contrast to my position…?

 

[Maxperson]

Players decide what their characters think, say, or act, except where overridden by game mechanics.

Yes, and there's absolutely nothing in the social skills section or either of the Social Interaction chapters that specifically overrides that.

 

[Hriston]

I think the key dividing factor here is in how we view ability checks. Folks arguing with me keep talking about “using social skills” like that’s a thing in the 5e rules. I think for those who conceptualize ability checks as actions, instead of a step in the process for resolving actions, my argument probably seems like nonsense.

Yes, but coupled with the view that an ability check is descriptive of the effort a creature is making, rather than determining the result of its action, is the view that the result is non-binding in terms of outcome. That's why there are posters in this thread saying that they make Charisma checks against PCs but that they aren't taking any agency away from the players because they are free to just shrug it off, and that the same goes for the DM in the case of a check being made against an NPC. In contrast, my DMing principles tell me that I am absolutely bound to honor the results of a check, meaning that on a successful result, the goal of the acting creature is achieved in the fiction.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. Such as rules governing social skills. Which you completely arbitrarily decide to not qualify.

Eh, no. Reason is not arbitrary. There's not one ounce of anything governing social skills that SPECIFICALLY creates an exception or contradiction to the rule allowing the player to decide. That's REASON to conclude that they don't override the player.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes, but coupled with the view that an ability check is descriptive of the effort a creature is making, rather than determining the result of its action, is the view that the result is non-binding in terms of outcome. That's why there are posters in this thread saying that they make Charisma checks against PCs but that they aren't taking any agency away from the players because they are free to just shrug it off, and that the same goes for the DM in the case of a check being made against an NPC. In contrast, my DMing principles tell me that I am absolutely bound to honor the results of a check, meaning that on a successful result, the goal of the acting creature is achieved in the fiction.

Oh, good point!

 

[clearstream]

One interesting variation is they decide to lie. That in itself might call for a dice roll (Cha? Con?), but probably another dice roll (Int? Wis?) to see if they all tell the same lie. And if they fail the second check....wow, not sure. It gets complicated.

Exactly, and that's another reason why I quite like to lean into skills. A player can say - I want to pretend to spill - and we can resolve that by drawing upon the mechanics in a way that is fair, and respects choices they made for their character. PC's Constitution (Deception) against NPC's Charisma (Intimidation) as I suggested in an earlier post.

Also, I don't think the game should be adjudicated to the dissatisfaction of players. I am interested in NPCs using social skills because of the possible positive impact on players.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure I stated such an absolute view, see below...

I see what happened. The extra comma here threw me off, "Only, the way I read it, it's not, since:" I read it as ONLY. The way you read it, is... not "only the way you read it is..."

As I've mentioned, it's entirely up to the DM and his style, what I did not like in the previous description was the gatekeeping of "the loop is mandatory, every action taken has to be by a PC, everything else is environment", when the RAW actually explain that it's not the case, just a simple tool for the flow of the game, with many possible exceptions.

Yeah, but I think that even if the loop is mandatory, the DM still gets to take actions. Those actions would just fall into the category of the DM describing the environment.

If I'm running some goblins in a combat, I'm not going to say, "The goblin is going to use the move action to move 20 feet to the Barbarian and then use the attack action to try and hit him." It's going to be description, "The goblin rushes the Barbarian screaming something in goblin as he does so. The goblins arm is already in motion as he arrives, his axe arcing downward towards Kojak's thigh." Even though I took an action for the goblin, it could still be viewed as environmental description and follow the play loop.

 

[Charlaquin]

Exactly, and that's another reason why I quite like to lean into skills. A player can say - I want to pretend to spill - and we can resolve that by drawing upon the mechanics in a way that is fair, and respects choices they made for their character. PC's Constitution (Deception) against NPC's Charisma (Intimidation) as I suggested in an earlier post.

This doesn’t seem to violate the player’s ability to decide what their character thinks, feels, or does, so I’m not sure why you bring it up here.

Also, I don't think the game should be adjudicated to the dissatisfaction of players. I am interested in NPCs using social skills because of the possible positive impact on players.

Could you give an example of an action an NPC might take that would violate the player’s ability to decide what their character thinks, feels, or does that would have a positive impact on the players, and elaborate on why you think the impact is positive?

 

[Lyxen]

No. It doesn't make the result uncertain at all. The varying information just means that the PC can be wrong with his decision, not that the decision is uncertain.

Whether a lie will be believable or not is what makes the decision uncertain.

Uncertainty is when the player or DM doesn't really know which way the PC/NPC will go.

Not exactly, it's when the DM doesn't know whether the PC/NPC will accomplish something or not: "If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success--the creature overcomes the challenge at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

So, in the case of deception, will the PC/NPC overcome the difficulty of producing a convincing lie in the circumstances.

 

[Aldarc]

Does the DM still call for the move to come into play, though? Earlier I assumed they would. The players don't name their move right? Even if it will be player-to-player.

The GM will call for a move when it's triggered in the fiction. Players will, however, sometimes name their moves, especially playbook-specific ones. (In contrast, GMs are never supposed to name their moves.) Players naming their moves is not necessarily ideal, as everything should begin and end with the fiction; however, Jeremy admits that it does happen that a player may indicate that their character wants to perform a move (e.g., Clash, Defend, Interfere, Aid, etc.):

Players might trigger a move intentionally, describing actions that they know meet the trigger. Or, they might also say “I want to Clash” or “I Defend.” That’s fine. But when they do, it’s your job to draw the fiction out of them. “Cool, what do you do?” “Okay, great, what’s that look like?” If you can’t picture it, ask for more detail. To do it, they have to do it.

But also note the bold. Players can't just declare a move; their characters have to do it. The GM may still call for the move or indicate that another move applies instead of the one the player named.

In the case of Parley or Persuade (vs. PC), it's not usually one that players "name" or say that they want to do.