D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

Holy quibbles. I view this (belief in the disguise) as something the PC thinks. They think (erroneously) that this is Lord Frogmouth.

It's for the player to decide. The DM shouldn't be saying things like "You think this is Lord Frogmouth." Or saying an NPC is trustworthy or anything like that. (Assuming I understand the example clearly. I just caught up on the thread with a heavy dose of skimming.)

 

[clearstream]

It's for the player to decide. The DM shouldn't be saying things like "You think this is Lord Frogmouth." Or saying an NPC is trustworthy or anything like that. (Assuming I understand the example clearly. I just caught up on the thread with a heavy dose of skimming.)

If we say - you have no reason to suppose this is not Lord Frogmouth - we are saying what they think (i.e. that they have no reason to suppose.) It may be up to the player to decide, but at this point we have already decided what their character thinks (that there is no reason to suppose.)

 

[Aldarc]

Right, so the outcome of the part of the move that would fall under Persuasion (in D&D terms) is left entirely up to the player to resolve. The player is free to submit to or (on any result) to refuse the request. The die roll only determines if they are required to reveal how they could be convinced, which (again in D&D terms) could be handled with a Wisdom (Insight) check against the PC's Charisma (Deception) check if the player does not wish to disclose.

It could also simply be handled with Charisma (Persuasion). In terms of symmetry, I may even prefer if this is what Persusasion vs. NPCs also entailed. Have it be more about revealing how they could be convinced or even if they can't than "I win. I have convinced the NPC."

It's for the player to decide. The DM shouldn't be saying things like "You think this is Lord Frogmouth." Or saying an NPC is trustworthy or anything like that. (Assuming I understand the example clearly. I just caught up on the thread with a heavy dose of skimming.)

This is also why I leave color and adjectives completely out of my descriptions of scenery. If I tell PCs that a chair is red, old, ornate, beautiful, or even a chair at all, then I risk telling them what their characters think!

 

[iserith]

If we say - you have no reason to suppose this is not Lord Frogmouth - we are saying what they think (i.e. that they have no reason to suppose.) It may be up to the player to decide, but at this point we have already decided what their character thinks (that there is no reason to suppose.)

Don't say they have no reason then. What is the actual action the player declared for the character here? What is the DM saying in response?

 

[iserith]

This is also why I leave color and adjectives completely out of my descriptions of scenery. If I tell PCs that a chair is red, old, ornate, beautiful, or even a chair at all, then I risk telling them what their characters think!

Ah, that old chestnut.

Edited to change "canard" to "chestnut" because it's the holidays.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Yes, game mechanics regularly intrude. I didn’t ask if they ever do, I asked if they must in this case.

And this gets back to a question I asked earlier: how do we distinguish between things the player decides, and things the referee decides? My answer, partly because I like clear definitions and partly because I just believe in it as a game design principle, is that players control their action declarations (and therefore, by implication, their character’s thoughts/feelings/emotions), unless a specific game mechanic clearly states otherwise.

Some posters seem to prefer that this a privilege granted by the DM, who can revoke it when they see fit.

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?

Because if that action declaration can be used by the Dragon to override the player’s right of autonomy, then any NPC can do the same, which leaves us with the possibility of a goblin intimidating a Tier 4 barbarian with a lucky roll, if the DM thinks that’s what that PC “would do.”

And, again, if such a disconnect actually occurred, the real answer is that those two people probably shouldn’t play together. But it’s the underlying principal that the DM arbitrarily decides how a PC reacts that I don’t want to validate.

Also, if the Dragon could do that then it wouldn’t actually need an ability that accomplishes the same thing. Just sayin’

 

[Bill Zebub]

Holy quibbles. I view this (belief in the disguise) as something the PC thinks. They think (erroneously) that this is Lord Frogmouth.

So this may come down to another philosophy difference.

Some people think the height of roleplaying is to isolate your own thoughts from those of your character.

My ideal is that you and your character share the same thoughts. I don’t want to pretend to be intimidated by an orc that I know I can kill without breaking a sweat, because the dice told me to. I want to genuinely be intimidated (on my character’s behalf) because I don’t know what the DM is up to.

 

[Charlaquin]

If we say - you have no reason to suppose this is not Lord Frogmouth - we are saying what they think (i.e. that they have no reason to suppose.) It may be up to the player to decide, but at this point we have already decided what their character thinks (that there is no reason to suppose.)

So don’t say that. They can decide for themselves if they have reason to suspect it isn’t Lord Frogmouth or not. Literally all you have to do if Not-Lord-Frogmouth succeeds at his Deception check (and/or the PCs fail their Insight check) is not say that they can tell it isn’t Lord Frogmouth.

 

[Hriston]

It could also simply be handled with Charisma (Persuasion). In terms of symmetry, I may even prefer if this is what Persusasion vs. NPCs also entailed. Have it be more about revealing how they could be convinced or even if they can't than "I win. I have convinced the NPC."

But this is what a Wisdom (Insight) check is already used for -- to determine the result of an effort to discover just this sort of hidden information. Charisma checks are used to determine the result of an effort to convince a creature to agree to a certain course of action. What would be gained by changing the names around?

 

[Aldarc]

This is also why I leave color and adjectives completely out of my descriptions of scenery. If I tell PCs that a chair is red, old, ornate, beautiful, or even a chair at all, then I risk telling them what their characters think!

iserith quoted me and then immediately put me on ignore. I guess they didn't find any levity in my humor.

But this is what a Wisdom (Insight) check is already used for -- to determine the result of an effort to discover just this sort of hidden information. Charisma checks are used to determine the result of an effort to convince a creature to agree to a certain course of action. What would be gained by changing the names around?

We may have to agree to disagree here. I can already anticipate a back-and-forth that goes nowhere.

I will point out that Stonetop also has "Seek Insight" as a move alongside Persuade (vs. PC/NPC), so I don't think that it's necessarily as clear cut of a distinction as you make it out to be.