D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

I think it’s good advice, if one wants players to roleplay characters with flaws.

I mean I hope you thought it was good advice, I would hope none of us are giving advice we don't believe in.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is all arranged very neatly, to support your particular castle in the air. I'm truly surprised you don't see the errors in it.

By all means, point them out.

 

[Faolyn]

Wait...why?

If you think I should be intimidated by the warlord and her platoon, it must be because they are more powerful than my character, but as DM you know that and I don't (in D&D it's hard to know that for sure because of weird zero-to-hero leveling stuff.). So if I refuse to be intimated, show me why I made a mistake. Kill my character, or whatever.

Why is it necessary for me to act intimidated?

If you have an in-character reason for your character to not be intimidated by the warlord, that's fine. It might be stupid of your character, but if it's in-character, whatever. But the problem is with people who aren't intimidated for out-of-character reasons.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean I hope you thought it was good advice, I would hope none of us are giving advice we don't believe in.

If you take issue with my advice, then be straightforward about it. What about what I said do you disagree with?

 

[clearstream]

Let’s be crystal clear what you are saying here:

When it comes to whether or not a DM should call for an NPC to make an ability check that has a possible outcome of affecting how a PC thinks, acts, or talks, you feel the rules support both prior-certainty and DM decides? The former depending upon, and the latter ignoring, the p185 rule (or guidance, if that pleases you) on roleplaying. Is that accurate?

Not the rules, no. That's only if we say that all text has equal weight. There then are so many inter and intratextual contradictions that conflicting readings are equally well sustained.

If we focus only on rules, then only DM decides stands, because DMG 244 tells us PHB 185 is a guideline.

 

[HammerMan]

See, I disagree that this is telling the player what their character thinks. Instead, when I roll for Deception, I am rolling for what the PC experiences. "He seems honest."

I think what you're put off by is that people tend to use sentences like "you think he's lying" in a way that (edit: you think) means the player can't choose otherwise. But that sort of phrasing isn't mind-control. It's just a shortcut, like saying "you don't find any traps on the chest." That doesn't mean there aren't any traps, and it doesn't mean the PC has to open the chest. And you don't have to trust an NPC just because the DM says "she seems honest."

Yeah, just to be clear (and I think I have been) my players have never once been impeded. they are told what is going on and they react.

People use that "you think he's lying" or "she seems honest" because--as I pointed out--only giving the physical descriptions of the NPC like "he's fidgety and contradictory" doesn't always say what you intend it to say. Is a person's fidgetiness due to lying, nervousness for other reasons, a personality trait, or hemorrhoids? Are they contradicting themselves because they're lying, because they're a crappy storyteller, because the events were convoluted and possibly magical in nature, or because the DM made a mistake? Use a description with the phrase "you think he's lying" if you actually want to get across a message clearly.

(This is also why I don't like the advice "always trust the DM." No, the DM should be honest in what you experience, not in what things actually are like. Your PC's senses can fool them.)

 

[HammerMan]

If you take issue with my advice, then be straightforward about it. What about what I said do you disagree with?

I disagree with carrot and stick (alone) by explaining out right "Hey in my games I prefer X over Y when role playing" is better then giving inspiration when they do X and hope like Pavlov's dog and salivate at the bell.

In my case I tell people upfront what I do and don't like.

 

[Charlaquin]

As an aside, @clearstream, you keep remarking how well my arguments are constructed to support my position, yet persist in asserting that it’s “a castle on air” or whatever. Is there a reason you’re unwilling to confront the possibility that the reason it’s so well-constructed is because it’s actually built on a substantive foundation?

 

[Bill Zebub]

If you have an in-character reason for your character to not be intimidated by the warlord, that's fine. It might be stupid of your character, but if it's in-character, whatever. But the problem is with people who aren't intimidated for out-of-character reasons.

Gosh I wouldn't take it on myself to try to tell the difference when it's somebody else doing it. I certainly wouldn't try to enforce a rule that policed that.

If I don't like how other people like to roleplay, I find new people to play with. I don't try to use rules to force them to roleplay my way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree with carrot and stick (alone) by explaining out right "Hey in my games I prefer X over Y when role playing" is better then giving inspiration when they do X and hope like Pavlov's dog and salivate at the bell.

In my case I tell people upfront what I do and don't like.

Ok, so once again we’re back to you assuming that I’m not doing that. I guess what I’m saying is, “why not both?” (Also for the record it’s all carrot. I wouldn’t punish anyone for playing “wrong.” But in my experience players like roleplaying, and they like getting inspiration, so… Giving out inspiration* for roleplaying is win/win)

*and actually I don’t even give it out. Players claim it for themselves.