D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

What difference does it make if I play 5e D&D or Vampire the Masquerade? If I have a skill on my sheet that says my character is good at X, why do I the player have to be good at describing X to be able to do it... and why should a player with out the skill on the sheet but can describe it better do it better since OUT OF GAME they did it better?

Every game is not the same. The D&D 5e rules say the player describes what they want to do and then offers a level of reasonable specificity for that. It's not really about being "good" at describing things. You just have to be able to say what you want do accomplish and how so the DM can adjudicate without saying or assuming what your character is doing to achieve their goal. This isn't a difficult task for most people in my experience, even children and people who have never played before. (If anything, those folks find it easier.)

 

[Charlaquin]

okay explain it to me...

in my games you can say
I use intimidate on the orc
I threaten the orc
I tell the orc if he doesn't run I will do horrible things to him

all 3 of those are the same to me.

In my view, the first two are incomplete action declarations, because they don’t state a goal. My guideline is that I must be able to identify both a goal (what you want to accomplish) and an approach (what you are doing to try and accomplish it.) When in doubt, a statement that takes the form of “I want to _____ by _____” almost always contains all the necessary information. That’s why “I try to pick the lock by using my thieves’ tools” works - I know what you want (to get the lock open) and how you plan to try and make it happen (picking it with your thieves’ tools), so we gucci. “I intimidate the orc” only tells me that you want to get the orc to do something, and you want to apply your Intimidation proficiency if a roll is required, but it doesn’t tell me what you want to get him to do or how. “I threaten the orc” is the same statement, just with a different synonym swapped in for intimidate. The third works, because it tells me what you want the orc to do (run) and how you try to get him to do it (say you will do horrible things to him if he doesn’t).

in my games you can say
I use investigation to check the desk
I look at the desk carefully going through it
I use my dagger to slide open the draw and riffle through the papers, is there anything important in the desk?

The first one wouldn’t work at my table because it didn’t tell me how your character is interacting with the desk. I would have to make a lot of assumptions about what you think “use investigate” means, opening the door for misunderstanding or hard feelings if I assume something incorrectly, especially if it leads to an outcome that is harmful to your character. I also have to assume what you’re even looking for, though I don’t feel too unjustified in assuming “anything of interest.” With the second, I have a bit better idea what your character was doing “going through the desk” is a little vague for my liking, but I understand it to be common shorthand for “open all the drawers and look through whatever’s in them,” so that’s fine. I still don’t know what you’re trying to find, but again, I don’t feel too bad in assuming “anything of interest.” I would probably accept that action declaration, but only because asking for more specificity would probably be more trouble than it’s worth since this one is close enough in most respects. The third one is a complete action declaration including both goal and approach, though I would prefer you state your goal confidently instead of asking a question. Replace “is there anything important?” with “I’m looking for anything important” or something similar and you’ve got a beautiful action declaration.

 

[Nefermandias]

What difference does it make if I play 5e D&D or Vampire the Masquerade? If I have a skill on my sheet that says my character is good at X, why do I the player have to be good at describing X to be able to do it... and why should a player with out the skill on the sheet but can describe it better do it better since OUT OF GAME they did it better?

You don't have to be an expert in black magic to describe how your character is going on about examining some arcane runes on the floor. You just have to be specific on what kind of approach you are using. Are you touching the runes? Are you casting the Identify spell? Are you consulting the book you find in the previous room to check if there's something relevant in there?

 

[Maxperson]

The RAW for skills asserts that the DM might call for a check. Let's test that for conflict against PHB 185.

• PC vs NPC - DM might call for a check. No conflict. The DM can say there is a check, or can say there is not a check.
• NPC vs PC - DM might call for a check. Conflict. Supposing PHB 185 prevails, the DM cannot say there is a check.

Might includes the possibility of, but according you you PHB 185 would make it impossible for DM to call for a check in the case of NPC vs PC.


Were there no conflict, I would not have made the argument. However, per RAW, there is a conflict.

Per RAW nothing says that social skills can be used on PCs. The DM "might" call for a check doesn't give express permission to use social skills on PCs. The entire social skill section, as well as both social interactions(for the player in the PHB and for the DM in the DMG) only give examples and explicit permission for use of social skills on NPCs, and language directed at the players doesn't equate to "It's also okay to use this on an NPC."

In order for there to be a conflict, you have to first create the ability to use the skills on PCs. If you do that then a POTENTIAL for conflict occurs. It's only potential, because the "might" doesn't inherently conflict with page 185.

 

[Nefermandias]

In my view, the first two are incomplete action declarations, because they don’t state a goal. My guideline is that I must be able to identify both a goal (what you want to accomplish) and an approach (what you are doing to try and accomplish it.) When in doubt, a statement that takes the form of “I want to _____ by _____” almost always contains all the necessary information. That’s why “I try to pick the lock by using my thieves’ tools” works - I know what you want (to get the lock open) and how you plan to try and make it happen (picking it with your thieves’ tools), so we gucci. “I intimidate the orc” only tells me that you want to get the orc to do something, and you want to apply your Intimidation proficiency if a roll is required, but it doesn’t tell me what you want to get him to do or how. “I threaten the orc” is the same statement, just with a different synonym swapped in for intimidate. The third works, because it tells me what you want the orc to do (run) and how you try to get him to do it (say you will do horrible things to him if he doesn’t).

The first one wouldn’t work at my table because it didn’t tell me how your character is interacting with the desk. I would have to make a lot of assumptions about what you think “use investigate” means, opening the door for misunderstanding or hard feelings if I assume something incorrectly, especially if it leads to an outcome that is harmful to your character. I also have to assume what you’re even looking for, though I don’t feel too unjustified in assuming “anything of interest.” With the second, I have a bit better idea what your character was doing “going through the desk” is a little vague for my liking, but I understand it to be common shorthand for “open all the drawers and look through whatever’s in them,” so that’s fine. I still don’t know what you’re trying to find, but again, I don’t feel too bad in assuming “anything of interest.” I would probably accept that action declaration, but only because asking for more specificity would probably be more trouble than it’s worth since this one is close enough in most respects. The third one is a complete action declaration including both goal and approach, though I would prefer you state your goal confidently instead of asking a question. Replace “is there anything important?” with “I’m looking for anything important” or something similar and you’ve got a beautiful action declaration.

In my experience, players tend to declare their actions as questions or in a vague manner when they are hesitant to commit to a certain action.
The real complication arises when the DM proceed to describe the outcome: "So, as you touch the runes..." and the player is like: "Whoa there, I never said I touched the runes!"

Long story short: The more complete your action declaration, the easier for the DM to adjucate it's outcome.

Memo to the Players #1: Taking Action

This is my first ever Memo to the Players. Specifically, your players. I’m taking time out of my busy life to do your job. To teach your players how to play D&D right. And I’m not talking about…

theangrygm.com

 

[Charlaquin]

What difference does it make if I play 5e D&D or Vampire the Masquerade? If I have a skill on my sheet that says my character is good at X, why do I the player have to be good at describing X to be able to do it... and why should a player with out the skill on the sheet but can describe it better do it better since OUT OF GAME they did it better?

It’s not a matter of being good at describing the action, it’s a matter of conveying enough information for me to be able to figure out if what your character is doing could successfully bring about your goal, if it could fail to bring about your goal, and what the consequences of failing to bring about your goal would be, without having to make assumptions or establish those details myself. A precise and detailed description of inserting the probe into the lock, slowly testing each pin’s resistance, feeling for the subtle change when they pass the tumbler, carefully sliding them up and then forcing them each just enough off track to jam them up, out of the way, and then turning the whole system to disengage the bolt is no better than just saying you use your thieves’ tools to pick the lock. In fact, in some ways the former is actually worse because it’s not nearly as concise as the latter, and I actually still have to make the assumption that picking the lock is your goal, though it’s obviously a pretty safe assumption in that particular case. Level of descriptive detail is not the bar, clear information about what you’re trying to accomplish and how is.

 

[Maxperson]

The DM can decide that any action declaration is a success or failure. That includes NPCs.

The DM can decide that almost any NPC declaration is a success or failure, and can declare that any PC declaration is a success or failure. RAW gives to the players the right to decide the success or failure or failure of social ability checks used against them, where those checks would force some sort of action or thought. The DM cannot decide those without a house rule.

You might be wondering if a DM ought to declare NPC actions automatic successes. In some cases it would seem to me that they ought not, but that is a separate question from what RAW entails they may do.

This is completely circumstantial. If I have an NPC acrobatics expert and there's a minor earthquake while the NPC is on some stairs, I'm not going to make the NPC roll to stay standing. It's going to be automatically successful. Of course I wouldn't make a PC acrobatics expert roll, either, so there's that. As long as the DM is being fair with his rulings, it's okay to rule PC or NPC actions successful. Or failures for that matter. I've had NPCs try things in desperation that have no chance of success and didn't bother rolling.

 

[Maxperson]

In this case, it is not up to the player. That is the meaning of creating an exception.

There isn't anything that SPECIFICALLY says it is creating an exception to page 185, though. You're taking implications that you are creating(I don't think they are really implied at all) and trying to say that those implications are specific exceptions. They aren't. Implications by definition fail to be specific in any sense of the word.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

You don't have to be an expert in black magic to describe how your character is going on about examining some arcane runes on the floor. You just have to be specific on what kind of approach you are using. Are you touching the runes? Are you casting the Identify spell? Are you consulting the book you find in the previous room to check if there's something relevant in there?

Players are not trained to search arcane runes though. So they don't know how best to do the task at hand, what might trigger ill effects, destroy delicate magical processes, etc.

You ask me how I search the runes? I'll say "correctly". Just cut out the pixel bitching and move to the fun part. No one wants to see Indiana Jones fart around with pavement stones in the hallway.

 

[Maxperson]

You have right there just said that - contrary to what is explicitly provided for in the skills - the DM cannot in some cases call for a check. Might entails the possibility of doing so, and PHB 7 is powerful enough to create an exception to anything general that gets in the way of that.

Here are the SPECIFIC rules for PCs interacting with NPCs in social situations that require ability checks. Page 186 of the PHB

"ABILITY CHECKS
In addition to roleplaying, ability checks are key in determining the outcome of an interaction.

Your roleplaying efforts can alter an NPC's attitude, but there might still be an element of chance in the situation. For example, your DM can call for a Charisma check at any point during an interaction if he or she wants the dice to play a role in determining an NPC's reactions. Other checks might be appropriate in certain situations, at your DM's discretion.

Pay attention to your skill proficiencies when thinking of how you want to interact with an NPC, and stack the deck in your favor by using an approach that relies on your best bonuses and skills. If the group needs to trick a guard into letting them into a castle, the rogue who is proficient in Deception is the best bet to lead the discussion. When negotiating for a hostage's release, the cleric with Persuasion should do most of the talking."

Nowhere in there is there a single thing about ability checks being used against the PCs. The DM can(might) call for a check for determining NPC reactions. Your(the player) roleplaying efforcs can alter an NPC's attitude. The DM might call for other checks(not charisma) if appropriate. Nothing backs you up in these specific rules on PCs interacting with NPCs in social settings.