D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Faolyn]

My suspicion is that it's because the DM has set up a plot, and if the players know the NPC is lying, and act on it, then the plot falls apart. And, honestly, that's a terrible reason.

I'm sure this is a big reason why some DMs, maybe even many DM, do this. And yes, I agree its terrible to hinge the plot on failing or succeeding on a single check. But it's not the only reason to have an NPC lie. An NPC could be trying to con the PC into buying something, could be swearing that they actually do surrender, could even be trying to send the PCs on a useless side quest.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, I don't even know what you mean by that? What are you describing? Something like this:
"I'll climb the wall."
"Ok, it's easy so you automatically succeed!"
"No! I wanted to fall! I'm declaring automatic failure!"

That's actually a very interesting example. If @clearstream's position is correct, then the player literally cannot have his PC let go and fall if the DM declares the climb an automatic success. Nor could he jump off of the wall if the DM declared the jump an auto failure.

Clearly those things cannot be true, so the player must be able to trump DM declarations of auto success or failure at least some of the time.

If that's not it, can you explain to me a scenario where the player declares an action, the DM declares it an auto-success, but the player actually wanted to automatically fail?

Sure. I want to climb the wall. Most of the way up I can now see that on the other side is a veritable army of enemy archers. Now I want to get down in a hurry by letting go and falling. Except the DM has declared auto success. Am I forced to complete the climb and be on top of the wall? I don't think so.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm sure this is a big reason why some DMs, maybe even many DM, do this. And yes, I agree its terrible to hinge the plot on failing or succeeding on a single check. But it's not the only reason to have an NPC lie. An NPC could be trying to con the PC into buying something, could be swearing that they actually do surrender, could even be trying to send the PCs on a useless side quest.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying it's the reason NPCs lie, I'm saying it's the reason that DMs are so invested in the lie being believed that they try to force the player to believe it with a dice roll.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's actually a very interesting example. If @clearstream's position is correct, then the player literally cannot have his PC let go and fall if the DM declares the climb an automatic success. Nor could he jump off of the wall if the DM declared the jump an auto failure.

Clearly those things cannot be true, so the player must be able to trump DM declarations of auto success or failure at least some of the time.

Sure. I want to climb the wall. Most of the way up I can now see that on the other side is a veritable army of enemy archers. Now I want to get down in a hurry by letting go and falling. Except the DM has declared auto success. Am I forced to complete the climb and be on top of the wall? I don't think so.

I think this is a really simple, obvious example of the DM adding environmental information and the player choosing a new action declaration.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Would you? Would anyone?

So why are you attributing powers to intimidation, persuasion, and the like? Powers that are not specifically called out in the rules?

Yes, exactly. Whether the DM says, "The orc automatically intimidates you" or "There's a 45% chance the orc intimidates you" there's really no difference: the DM is still saying "I get to decide what your character thinks, not you."

 

[Charlaquin]

So, I’ve fallen behind the thread and at this point I don’t really care to catch back up. But, I noticed this post and wanted to address it because I thought it was interesting.

I didn't skip on purpose! I would like to call out that the position I am taking in this thread has moved.

My stance is that RAI is that player agency must be preserved. Therefore my earlier example would constitute a house rule. I'd good with that, and won't defend it as RAI.

As to RAW, let's face it - if the DM wants to override player agency, then pretty much anything they wanted to do with an ability check they could do by giving the NPC the necessary spell or trait pulled from RAW that does that same thing! So I see this whole prior-certainty pursuit as a really dedicated chase after something totally fruitless. It's up to the DM and that is established in RAW.

I don’t think you actually disagree with us any more then. Remember, this entire thread has never been about what the rules allow the DM to do (which is literally anything they want), but what they support the DM in doing. Is that a fruitless thing to argue about? …well, yeah. I don’t understand why anybody who disagrees about what the rules do or don’t support even cares.

 

[HammerMan]

I have no idea why we're rolling. In every social situation, I the player will know with absolute certainty, whether my PC will or will not do or think something. Your roll isn't going to be relevant to that decision.

I can imagine many times there is no need to roll, we are talking the corner cases where you do

 

[HammerMan]

I think the mature thing to do is recognize that I think you're wrong and you think you're right and agree to disagree. This, however, will not stop me from saying, when it's relevant to the discussion with other posters, if I think a certain reading is correct or incorrect.

the recognize I will be here saying this every time too.

 

[HammerMan]

You can't set a DC, which you yourself even said.

I can and doo all the time, but it wont help with a discussion of RAW since I house rule all DCs. However the book has guidelines you can use RAW (I just don't)

Your duck isn't a duck even if for some reason you think there's something uncertain about how the player will respond as it pertains to adjudication.

there is an action an uncertainty and a ability score and skill you can call on

 

[HammerMan]

Yes, exactly. Whether the DM says, "The orc automatically intimidates you" or "There's a 45% chance the orc intimidates you" there's really no difference: the DM is still saying "I get to decide what your character thinks, not you."

again see my response on why some DMs (and Players) may be MORE invested in the in game narrative then the ability of the DM to describe the in game narrative.