D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

It's up to the DM to decide though. Different DMs can disagree on whether a player's declared action in context succeeds outright, fails outright, or could go either way.

yup I am sure there are DMs rolling for DC 9 rusty locks when the player has +7 in theives tools...

I even know pre pandemic at my game store (that closed now) there was a big 'debate' on if someone has +11 and rolls a 1 for a 12 if they fail a DC 10...

 

[HammerMan]

Yes. The designers have clarified that on twitter. The social skills were not intended for use on PCs.

no they didn't it was posted like 15ish pages ago

 

[HammerMan]

And to be clear, the rules don't prevent the DM from doing anything, including using weighted rolls (e.g. d20+Intimidate) to guide their description of an NPC or monster. It's just not an ability check as the rules lay out.

yes it is. the rules lay out what cha+intimidate can do. the rules give every monster cha, and some monster intimidate. The rules say if they Can succeed but it is uncertain if they succeed or fail, the DM MAY CALL FOR A ROLL

 

[HammerMan]

The GM can be expected to say some things can't be done.
Player: I flap my arms really hard and try to fly up to the roof of the cave to check out the stalactites.
DM: No
Player: What If I roll a natural 20 on Athletics?
DM: No.

in 2e (with a bad DM) I had my 3rd level paliden pushed off a deck of an airship to fall for 3 rounds (that he insist I roleplay and not start rolling a new one until i splat) so on round two I said "I flap my arms like a bird can I check to see if that helps" and he lost his damn mind... what was I supposed to do on my turn!?!?

 

[HammerMan]

And you don't have to cover the whole 238,900 miles in one jump, just most of it. I don't know the exact distance, but at some point when you're almost there the moon's gravity will take over and pull you the rest of the way.

half way... my under standing is at 50.001% of the way to the moon the moons gravity kicks in.

 

[clearstream]

That poll was written poorly.

Polling isn't my area of expertise, so I don't claim anything like perfection. I'd even welcome improvement suggestions (in that thread, ideally.) However, I found it answered my questions and informed my views very effectively.

Consider this one - An NPC can pry information from a PC, with a CHA (Intimidation) check. Only 12.5% sympathise with that. I chose it because it felt to me like a dilute case: a miner's canary. It is clear that respondents don't normally expect an ability check to override player agency. If this is ruled out, surely any stronger override on player agency would normally also be ruled out!

Folk are far more comfortable using ability checks to resolve attempts to mislead players. For roughly two-thirds of respondents, that felt normal. Although cases where CHA (Deception) is applicable are often discussed by the game designers in the same breath as cases where CHA (Intimidation) or (Persuasion) are applicable, the RAI needn't be identical because those cases are not identical. The latter get at what a PC will do, whereas the former get at what a PC might think without commiting the PC to do anything based on it.

 

[HammerMan]

Polling isn't my area of expertise, so I don't claim anything like perfection. I'd even welcome improvement suggestions (in that thread, ideally.) However, I found it answered my questions and informed my views very effectively.

Consider this one - An NPC can pry information from a PC, with a CHA (Intimidation) check. Only 12.5% sympathise with that. I chose it because it felt to me like a dilute case: a miner's canary. It is clear that respondents don't normally expect an ability check to override player agency. If this is ruled out, surely any stronger override on player agency would normally also be ruled out!

Folk are far more comfortable using ability checks to resolve attempts to mislead players. For roughly two-thirds of respondents, that felt normal. Although cases where CHA (Deception) is applicable are often discussed by the game designers in the same breath as cases where CHA (Intimidation) or (Persuasion) are applicable, the RAI needn't be identical because those cases are not identical. The latter get at what a PC will do, whereas the former get at what a PC might think without commiting the PC to do anything based on it.

I think you did fine, and again it showed that even with the few of us who post on enworld there is no consensus and as such no one can say what the 'right' ruleing is.

 

[clearstream]

first, it's not that eitheer way wont work. I have played both (with good and bad result but i culk that up more to good and bad DMs)

It makes sense that differing play styles - approaching RPG in differing modes - will impact on a group's focus and choices relating to social interaction. Given differing focus and choices, the game play will diverge.

It's also true I think that understanding of how to RPG has made ground over the years. Partly in terms of lenses - what modes can/do we look at an RPG through? I'd like to know - what might be achieved by those of us who are interested in a mode that wants to make use of game as game to deliver its RP experience?

 

[iserith]

and yet you choose to advise pixl hunting instead.

so you have identified your problem... admiting it is the first step to recovery.

I don't advocate pixel-hunting. As well, I don't attach my identity to a "play style."

 

[iserith]

yes it is. the rules lay out what cha+intimidate can do. the rules give every monster cha, and some monster intimidate. The rules say if they Can succeed but it is uncertain if they succeed or fail, the DM MAY CALL FOR A ROLL

Except there's no uncertainty when the player decides how the character reactions. No uncertainty, no roll.