D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

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?

Yes. It seems to be that if there is disagreement on what a character would do, and the DM imposes their belief on the player, it’s hard to see how that would result in a “positive impact”.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Sure. But can’t that be used as just environmental description, to be used (or not) by the player as they see fit? Must it end with a restriction on player autonomy?

 

[clearstream]

This topic gets re-hashed a lot, it seems, and in general my stance is that social skills don't 'work' on other PCs.

But I was just reading some of the early materials for Stonetop, a kickstarted PoA game, and came across this:

View attachment 147502

I like that a lot. It leaves the target PC fully in control of the player, but also provides a framework for Cha skills to 'work' on other PCs.

I don't have an elegant way to map that to 5e rules, but thought I'd throw it out there as a middle ground between the two sides of the debate.

So while we've been debating, I've been thinking how to draft a possibly more usable version of 5th edition persuasion. I've been thinking of how to leave significant facets of RP up to players/DM, while letting the mechanics decide on details.

Persuasion reveals whether a creature will do or sacrifice what you ask, and what they desire in exchange.

So this is the core rule: it's not complete at this point. Just the nub of it. The idea is not to say anything about what a creature must do, only to disclose facts about what they want and would do for it. It's symmetrical. When an NPC makes a successful persuasion check against a PC, the PC discloses what they are willing to do, and the price.

 

[Lyxen]

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

And that is based on the NPC using a social skill on a PC, which is all I needed to prove.

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.

Indeed, it's a different philosophy but still, it's what separates playing yourself against roleplaying a character.

The action was resolved without need for a roll.

First important point, we agree that there was an action from the NPC. Now, you decided not to allow a roll, but it's your choice, and the RAW is clear: "In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction." So it would be perfectly within the scope of the RAW for a DM to actually request a roll from a NPC, since "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge," in this case, the challenge being to lie convincingly to a PC.

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.

If you play it that way, there is no reason not to reverse it when a PC tells a lie to an NPC. It's absolutely symmetrical. But again, choosing to play something that way is purely your decision, the RAW do not make any constraint here.

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 that's all I wanted to hear, thanks. Beyond that, it's just a difference of style.

 

[clearstream]

Sure. But can’t that be used as just environmental description, to be used (or not) by the player as they see fit? Must it end with a restriction on player autonomy?

We come back to an earlier point. Game mechanics regularly intrude on what players can decide their characters do. There have been arguments in this thread seeking to show that RAW doesn't allow that.

Set that aside for a moment and ask instead: what is the moral difference between say Deception skill deciding what a player can decide their character does, and any other game mechanic? Regardless of whether we think the RAW allows it or not, why is it more worrying to say that a dragon could roll their intimidate and make a character unable to approach, than that they should use their frightening presence?

 

[Lyxen]

Yes. It seems to be that if there is disagreement on what a character would do, and the DM imposes their belief on the player, it’s hard to see how that would result in a “positive impact”.

Well, there are many players at our tables who absolutely love it when they are possessed / controlled / charmed by an enemy, so yes, there can be extremely positive impact. For that, you need to have mature players who are not overly concerned about concepts like "player agency" because they realise that it's just a game anyway, that characters are not real and that it's not an unacceptable intrusion on their free will as human beings...

 

[Lyxen]

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..."

My bad, I agree that the style was not the best in that sentence.

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.

As mentioned, this stretches my understanding of what the "environment" includes. Anyway, it's a bit of a moot point since the PH allows all approaches there anyway.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Not by 5e RAW. Uncertainty is the player or DM not knowing which way the NPC or PC will go. If the DM or player does know which way the PC or NPC will go, even if it results in the wrong answer or decision, the outcome was never uncertain. I the player am free to decide whether my PC believes or doesn't believe the NPC, regardless of how well or crappy the NPC is at his lying ability.

Earlier this year I was running my game and the PC druid was talking to an NPC. The NPC tried to lie to him, but I knew the NPC was really bad at lying. There was no meaningful consequence involved, so I simply told the PC that he noticed the NPC fidgeting nervously and not making eye contact as he spoke, and that he could tell the NPC was lying. The player corrected me, saying that his PC having lived his entire life in the wild not only doesn't know about that sort of body language, but really doesn't even care, so he doesn't pick up on the lie. Immediately I was like, "Okay. You don't notice the lie." and we kept playing with the PC believing what that NPC said.

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.

When it comes to things like intimidation and persuasion, though, only the player can determine uncertainty.

"The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure."

The key word there is "chance." When it has a chance of failure, which also means a chance of success(ie uncertain), a roll is called for. As a player I know 100% whether an NPC can persuade or intimidate my PC. There's no "chance" involved, so no roll can be involved.

If the NPC wants to talk my PC into taking him with me as I journey to the next town, I will make that decision without a roll. Once I've heard his reasons and arguments for why I should take him, I'm going to make that decision. If I say no, there's no roll that can make that change. no, means no. The only way to change it is to come up with a new reason for me to take him. I will then decide again based on that. Maybe I will say yes based on this new information. Maybe I will say no. At no time, though, is the outcome in doubt. It's either absolutely yes or absolutely no, which means no roll is involved.

 

[Charlaquin]

And that is based on the NPC using a social skill on a PC, which is all I needed to prove.

Mhmm. Remember the part where all throughout this thread I’ve been saying that social actions aren’t a carve-out? There’s no reason that I know of that social actions can’t be used on PCs, or that they shouldn’t be resolved with ability checks as a blanket rule. It is only when an action (social or otherwise) infringes on a player’s ability to decide what their character thinks, feels, and does that I believe an ability check is not a supported way to resolve the action.

IFirst important point, we agree that there was an action from the NPC. Now, you decided not to allow a roll, but it's your choice, and the RAW is clear: "In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction." So it would be perfectly within the scope of the RAW for a DM to actually request a roll from a NPC, since "An ability check tests a character's or monster's innate talent and training in an effort to overcome a challenge," in this case, the challenge being to lie convincingly to a PC.

Well, in that instance, it’s more that I opted not to require a roll than not to *allow one. But, yeah, I don’t think an NPC telling a lie necessarily infringes in a player’s ability to decide what their character thinks, feels, and does. Unless you tell the player “you think he’s telling the truth” instead of just not telling them he’s lying, in which case I don’t think the rules support that.

If you play it that way, there is no reason not to reverse it when a PC tells a lie to an NPC. It's absolutely symmetrical. But again, choosing to play something that way is purely your decision, the RAW do not make any constraint here.

I disagree that it necessarily needs to be symmetrical here. I probably would run it fairly symmetrically, but I don’t think that’s the only supported way to run it.

And that's all I wanted to hear, thanks. Beyond that, it's just a difference of style.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. It seems to be that if there is disagreement on what a character would do, and the DM imposes their belief on the player, it’s hard to see how that would result in a “positive impact”.

It also gives the persuasion skill the same power as a Suggestion spell. As long as the NPC hits the proper DC(PC fails the save), the PC has to do what the NPC is suggesting through the persuasion skill. Persuasion actually becomes stronger than the Suggestion spell. It has no concentration requirement or 8 hour duration, and can be used at will, even on a creature immune to charm.