D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Maxperson]

But is there anything that specifically says they cannot?

Not explicitly, but that doesn't matter. D&D is not a game where if it doesn't say you can't do something, you can. It's a game where if it doesn't say you can't do something, you can't unless the DM makes it so that you can.

If no - and the simple lack of supporting examples doesn't qualify IMO, as the examples are of course written from a player's point of view - then it is and remains a hole in the rules requiring a DM's ruling.

The social interaction section in the DMG also doesn't, and that's from the DM point of view. No matter where you look, it's all support for PC vs. NPC, but not vice versa. And of course we know that the reason for that is RAI is for it not to work on PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

And this is why simply saying “examining” isn’t clear enough. What you think the word means and what @Nefermandias thinks it means are different, so if they had’t been more specific, you might have incorrectly assumed what they were picturing their character doing and adjudicated the action based on that misapprehension, potentially leading to friction at the table that could have been avoided with a reasonably specific statement of goal and approach.

While I completely agree with you here, sometimes actions are taken without any particular goal in mind beyond "because I can", and IMO this doesn't make those actions any less valid.

A bullying PC, for example, might try to intimidate people "because I can". A looter typical adventurer might search a desk "because it's there". A Rogue might pick some pockets in town "just for fun (or) just for practice)". And so on.

 

[Lanefan]

That’s a preference of mine, because it keeps the conversation focused on actual action that’s occurring in the fiction, instead of stepping back from the action to talk about the fiction in an abstract way. But it’s not a rule or anything and I don’t tell my players they can’t ask questions. I just explain my preference for active language in advance so we’re on the same page from the start.

“I look for an exit” tells me that something is happening in the fiction. The character is actively looking around. The other pauses the action so we can establish, in an abstract manner, what is present in the fiction before the action can continue.

Most of the time when a player asks something like that, what they're really asking is "Is there anything else obvious about this scene that you could/should have narrated but didn't?". This is highly relevant when running published modules and relying on the boxed text, as boxed text is sometimes woefully incomplete and in a few cases outright erroneous when compared to the map and-or non-boxed write-up.

And even when using homebrew modules it's all too easy to forget to narrate something obvious, such as - in this case - an exit.

 

[Hriston]

Here, you are reading the RAW to suit your argument. It does not say - in this case or that case. There is no such hedging.

The usage of the word might throughout the section on Using Each Ability is itself as a hedge. It entails might not. It expresses possibilities only and should not be read as expressing permission. It is telling players what could happen in the game. It is not giving the DM permission to call for checks under all circumstances.

Here's an example, for illustration, from under Investigation:

You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse.​

This passage does not give the player permission to deduce, discern, and determine these truths about the game world at will. It is merely stating that it may be possible to do so. It is the same with the rest of the occurrences of might in this section.

 

[Lanefan]

If the players have 7 keys and they say “I try the key”? No, that’s not clear.

What about if they say "I try each key" - does that work?

 

[Bill Zebub]

What about if they say "I try each key" - does that work?

“The fourth key opens it, but the 7th one triggers a trap.”
“What?!?! I would have stopped after I found the right one!”
“Next time you might want to be more specific.”

 

[Lanefan]

Unpredictable toys that can cripple and maim you - d20s are not your friend. Ability checks are the last resort, not the first one!

You keep banging this drum but I'm not buying it, largely because unless I'm trying something dirt-simple I'm used to failing far more often than succeeding, thus getting it to a roll usually improves my chances.

Of course, my dice are professional traitors, but that's another issue entirely.......

 

[Maxperson]

“The fourth key opens it, but the 7th one triggers a trap.”
“What?!?! I would have stopped after I found the right one!”
“Next time you might want to be more specific.”

Psh! The 4th key opens it and all the others trigger the trap.

 

[Lanefan]

Not explicitly, but that doesn't matter. D&D is not a game where if it doesn't say you can't do something, you can. It's a game where if it doesn't say you can't do something, you can't unless the DM makes it so that you can.

Oh come on, man - this is 2021, not 2001. That's pure 3e talk there.

5e is way more open-ended, at least in its intent; more like 0e and to some extent 1e.

The social interaction section in the DMG also doesn't, and that's from the DM point of view. No matter where you look, it's all support for PC vs. NPC, but not vice versa. And of course we know that the reason for that is RAI is for it not to work on PCs.

We do?

Seems to me the main point of contention here is that some people don't know that and-or aren't interpreting the rules and guidance the same way you are.

 

[Charlaquin]

While I completely agree with you here, sometimes actions are taken without any particular goal in mind beyond "because I can", and IMO this doesn't make those actions any less valid.

A bullying PC, for example, might try to intimidate people "because I can". A looter typical adventurer might search a desk "because it's there". A Rogue might pick some pockets in town "just for fun (or) just for practice)". And so on.

You’re talking about motivations, not goals. I don’t care why a character wants to do something; “because I can” is as valid a reason as any. But I do need to know what they’re trying to accomplish. Intimidate people into what? “being afraid of me” is fine, but I do need the player to state that clearly. Searching a desk for what? “Anything of interest or value” is fine, but I do need the player to state that clearly. Picking pockets is kind of self-explanatory, obviously you want to get whatever is in their pockets.