D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[iserith]

So if the DM says that the NPC is acting fidgety while saying something, what does that mean? Because as I just said, that can be interpreted in several ways.

How that description is interpreted is up to the player to decide. Maybe they ignore it. Maybe they try to figure out why it is. Just like any other detail provided in the game.

Which is why making an Insight check is good, because then we can straight-up learn, with minimal ambiguity, that we (the PC) feel that the NPC is being evasive. I as the player don't have worry that I'm gotten what the DM may or may not have meant to be a clue, and I as the DM don't have to worry that my players understood my hints. (This is doubly true for me because I'm an aspie and sometimes don't read people well.)

I'm still not seeing why you seem to think I'm not calling for Wisdom (Insight) checks in my game when appropriate to do so. And that's when the player states an action along those lines and there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[Faolyn]

Sure you are. You’re playing the role of someone who ain’t scared of nothing, nohow. That’s a legitimate choice.

Except that the people who act like this usually aren't actually playing people who ain't scared of nothing. They're usually just not wanting to play people with flaws (i.e., not being the toughest) or who simply are refusing to engage with the game.

If you actually made a character and as part of that character's description/background you wrote "isn't scared of anybody and attempts to intimidate them just make them laugh," I'd accept that--although I'd require you to explain why your character is like that. Most people aren't writing that sort of stuff into their character, though.

 

[iserith]

Because it's a role-playing game. If you unilaterally decide your character isn't intimidated, no matter how much bigger, tougher, scarier, or more powerful the other guy is, then you're not really role-playing. And you might be knocking other people out of their immersion in the process.

If you're deciding what your character thinks, does, and says, you're roleplaying.

 

[Faolyn]

I'm still not seeing why you seem to think I'm not calling for Wisdom (Insight) checks in my game when appropriate to do so. And that's when the player states an action along those lines and there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure.

So why are you indicating that using Insight is tantamount to telling the PCs what to think?

 

[HammerMan]

Sure you are. You’re playing the role of someone who ain’t scared of nothing, nohow. That’s a legitimate choice.

now this is where preference comes up and session 0... I always make it clear (as do several of my players) that if you choose to play that once you have pretty much used up most of our suspension of disbelief and your next character better not have the same thought.

 

[Charlaquin]

The check isn’t to determine how the PC feels, however. The player is already stating that their PC feels something is amiss and want to check this NPC out further for signs of lying. The WIS(Insight) check called by the DM is to validate the feeling as right on a success or perhaps inconclusive on a failure or perhaps validated but with some other consequence on a failure (success with a setback). The player can then indicate how, if in any way, the PC’s feelings have then changed. The dice do not tell the player that.

Correct. The function of ability checks, in my understanding, is to determine between two possible outcomes of your stated action:
1. Success at or progress towards your goal.
2. No progress towards your goal, or progress towards your goal combined with a setback.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except that the people who act like this usually aren't actually playing people who ain't scared of nothing. They're usually just not wanting to play people with flaws (i.e., not being the toughest) or who simply are refusing to engage with the game.

If you actually made a character and as part of that character's description/background you wrote "isn't scared of anybody and attempts to intimidate them just make them laugh," I'd accept that--although I'd require you to explain why your character is like that. Most people aren't writing that sort of stuff into their character, though.

If you want to encourage players to portray characters with flaws, I recommend using background characteristics and awarding inspiration for acting in accordance with them.

 

[Faolyn]

If you're deciding what your character thinks, does, and says, you're roleplaying.

Not if the PC is never intimidated by anything.

There's a difference between not being intimidated when some bandit sticks a knife in your face because you know you're tougher than the bandit, and not being intimidated when a fully-decked-out warlord is sticking an armed-and-armored platoon of veteran soldiers in your face. If you decide your character isn't intimidated by that, there had better be a good and plausible reason why.

 

[Charlaquin]

So why are you indicating that using Insight is tantamount to telling the PCs what to think?

I’m… Not…?

 

[HammerMan]

IME it's quite the opposite: players will generally bow to things forced by the game mechanics but if it ain't forced, it ain't happening.

funny aside...

back about 15ish years ago we had a marshal(DM) in deadlands use the out of game line "This NPC is about to charm you," and then RP the character we were pretty sure that was vampire being nice to the woman in the game (only woman player) and she asked "Is there a way to resist?" and the DM and her totally talked past each other and he said something about no, what would she resist... she went 2 sessions totally acting enthralled to the NPC, like puppy dog level of obedient. It was only when another player asked if there was a duration on this charm that the guy running the game realized the mistake... we all took an out of game joke as a mechanic and played it as such.