D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

There's nothing at all wrong with "The PCs make their own decisions". Bravo. Preach it!

What makes me shake my head is that some of the same people pushing that stance are also pushing for PCs to retain the ability to use social skills/abilities to influence (if not outright force) NPCs' decisions, via the DM calling for a roll. To me this just sounds like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

If "the PCs make their own decisions" is true then "the NPCs make their own decisions" should also be true. No rolling required unless someone - player or DM - wants to do a non-binding self-informative roll if truly uncertain how their character(s) would react.

Or (the much-worse option):

If the NPCs can be mechanically influenced/forced into certain decisions then the same should apply to PCs.

The NPCs aren't being "mechanically influenced" though. The player is stating an action. The DM is determining the outcome. If the DM is uncertain about the outcome and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, they call for an ability check. It's the action that is influencing the NPC, not the ability check. The ability check just determines whether the action is successful or not (since it was uncertain). Getting this concept straight in one's head is fundamental to understanding how the game works in my view. An ability check is not an action, nor an action an ability check.

 

[Aldarc]

Okay, so is there no way in this system to influence an NPC to do something without the GM's agreement or imposing conditions? If not, I would be a little surprised, but like I said, I'm completely ignorant when it comes to PbtA.

Pretty much. PbtA games generally don't have "push skill X to win" buttons in the game. So mechanically your ability to influence NPCs generally involves stipulations and conditions. Some moves require the player to pick their own conditions or complications.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

If I've got all these skills listed on my character sheet and I can't use them, what the hell are they there for?

If I'm in an in-game situation where I'm trying to intimidate a captive to get some info out of it and I've previously put character-build resources into Intimidate as a skill, I should be able to proactively (i.e. without waiting for DM permission) bring that resource/skill into play somehow. If I can't, then what's the point of it? Why does it even exist?

(my point here is that it shouldn't exist; if these social skills serve no mechanical purpose then get rid of them)

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.

Some - me included - would see the following (stripped down to basics for clarity) as exactly analagous:

"I try to hit the Goblin with my shortsword; I'm +2 for Strength and +1 for weapon focus!"
"I try to intimidate the Goblin into telling me where its base camp is. I'm +2 for Charisma and +1 for intimidate!"

Now obviously the second of these could and would involve a lot more back-and-forth roleplay between me-as-character and DM-as-Goblin than is show here but in the end, unless the DM says it's no contest one way or the other, the resolution boils down to this.

 

[Faolyn]

It does not apply the Charmed condition. I know, weird, right?

Maybe someone else has already corrected you (I'm behind in the thread) but... yes, charm person inflicts the charmed condition.

You attempt to charm a humanoid you can see within range. It must make a Wisdom saving throw, and does so with advantage if you or your companions are fighting it. If it fails the saving throw, it is charmed by you until the spell ends or until you or your com panions do anything harmful to it. The charmed creature regards you as a friendly acquaintance. When the spell ends, the creature knows it was charmed by you.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Fine unless you have players - and there's a lot of 'em out there, IME it's the majority of 'em - who under the aegis of "the PC is controlled by the player" simply won't respond to such things until and unless the game mechanically forces them to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

There's nothing at all wrong with "The PCs make their own decisions". Bravo. Preach it!

What makes me shake my head is that some of the same people pushing that stance are also pushing for PCs to retain the ability to use social skills/abilities to influence (if not outright force) NPCs' decisions, via the DM calling for a roll. To me this just sounds like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

If "the PCs make their own decisions" is true then "the NPCs make their own decisions" should also be true. No rolling required unless someone - player or DM - wants to do a non-binding self-informative roll if truly uncertain how their character(s) would react.

It already is true. On the NPC side of things the DM decides whether the outcome is in doubt or not. If the DM has determined that there is doubt that the NPC will refuse, the NPC won't do what the PC wants no matter how high the PCs persuasion skill is.

As the DM, though, I don't know every Tom, Baker and Horse Salesman, so the outcome is going to be in doubt for me a lot more than it will for a player who is only playing a single PC and knows that PC better than I ever will.

 

[Mordhau]

I do recall some past conversations that seemed to suggest that descriptions of scenery or the environment in some old adventures or modules was so timid out of fear of suggesting anything that the characters may think about any of it. If what you say is true, then there may be some truth to that.

There's a style of writing boxed text which is kind of painful that contains writing like "You feel your heart sink as you cross over the peak of the mountain ridge only to see more mountains in front of you as far as the eye can see, and feel weariness sink into your bones as you contemplate the laborious journey ahead."

I don't think it's the role of DM description or boxed text to say things like "You feel your heart sink" or to otherwise say how the PCs respond to what they see.

I don't think this means the writing has to be bad - I think these kinds of novelistic descriptions are usually full of cliches anyway.

 

[Bill Zebub]

There's nothing at all wrong with "The PCs make their own decisions". Bravo. Preach it!

What makes me shake my head is that some of the same people pushing that stance are also pushing for PCs to retain the ability to use social skills/abilities to influence (if not outright force) NPCs' decisions, via the DM calling for a roll. To me this just sounds like trying to have one's cake and eat it too.

If "the PCs make their own decisions" is true then "the NPCs make their own decisions" should also be true. No rolling required unless someone - player or DM - wants to do a non-binding self-informative roll if truly uncertain how their character(s) would react.

Or (the much-worse option):

If the NPCs can be mechanically influenced/forced into certain decisions then the same should apply to PCs.

Nobody is arguing that. Literally every person on this side of the debate has acknowledged that the DM decides how it is adjudicated, and is free to rule without dice.

So, no. Just no. Bad argument! Bad! No biscuit.

 

[Lanefan]

The NPCs aren't being "mechanically influenced" though. The player is stating an action. The DM is determining the outcome. If the DM is uncertain about the outcome and there's a meaningful consequence for failure, they call for an ability check. It's the action that is influencing the NPC, not the ability check. The ability check just determines whether the action is successful or not (since it was uncertain).

And that determination, as it's binding, is what forces the NPC's decision.

Getting this concept straight in one's head is fundamental to understanding how the game works in my view. An ability check is not an action, nor an action an ability check.

True, though many action declarations will lead to an ability check unless the DM says auto-pass or auto-fail.

 

[Bill Zebub]

If I've got all these skills listed on my character sheet and I can't use them, what the hell are they there for?

You also have all these attributes listed. Do you “use” them? If yes, then it’s exactly the same answer for skills.