D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[Bill Zebub]

That a player never describes a particular PC as intimidated, if it otherwise fits with that character, is more or less OK.

That a player never describes any of their PCs as intimidated even when doing so would fit with the character otherwise, is abusing the system. And I've known many a player who would do just this until and unless a game mechanic forced a change of thinking.

Put another way, IME many players are bad at self-penalizing and need the game to apply penalties for them.

Does it have to be "abusing" the system? What if somebody just has a more heroic image in mind when they play D&D?

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's rare another player will call this out, however, and-or if they do it's by secret note to the DM; thus either way it's left to the DM to call out.

Wait...seriously? You play with people who pass notes to the DM saying "so-and-so is cheating"?

WTF?

 

[Campbell]

Who gets to decide whether something is a legitimate way for a character to act?

In our group if something seems out of character we'll ask clarifying questions. We'll do the same for NPCs.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sure, that's fine - once.

But every character? That's overkill.

Do you similarly bring down the hammer if somebody plays a mysterious character with a dark past more than once or twice?

What if somebody plays only melee characters? Is that also bad roleplaying?

 

[iserith]

Allowing one's PC to be [intimidated, persuaded etc.] almost inevitably means that PC is going to end up saying or doing something it otherwise wouldn't want to to, exactly as it would were it an NPC who'd been [persuaded, intimidated etc.].

Players quite reasonably don't want their characters put in these positions, and so if there's ever to be a chance for a PC to be [persuaded, intimidated, etc.] the game mechanics have to somehow force it. If the game mechanics don't force it, then it's on the honour of the players to play their PCs with enough integrity to allow them to be [intimidated, persuaded etc.] now and then when such makes sense in the situation; and IME many (most?) don't or won't.

I still can't see why that is abuse. That's just people not portraying their characters in a way you prefer. Worthy of a conversation perhaps to get on the same page with regard to the expectations of how the table plays, but hardly abuse in my view.

In D&D 5e, personal characteristics and Inspiration are the way to incentivize portraying the character in a consistent, established manner. Not that any of the people who seem the most concerned about how other people portray their characters ever seem to use it...

 

[Faolyn]

And I'm no further enlightened about what you're trying to say.

OK, how do you normally tell is someone is acting out of character?

 

[iserith]

OK, how do you normally tell is someone is acting out of character?

For me this falls into the category of "Who gives a dusty flumph?" It's none of my business as a DM or a player. People are free to make their own choices as to what their characters do. If they play to their personality traits, ideals, bonds, and flaws, great, that might be worth Inspiration. If they don't, that's fine too. And anyway, even if someone does act "out-of-character," why is that bad? Are characters not capable of complexity, contradiction, or change?

 

[Mordhau]

What if the player views their PC as more of a character in a modernist narrative, with a fragmented multiplictious self that contains multitudes and is attempting to deconstruct the narrative convention of 'character' by embodying the contradictions that we all enact in our own daily lives?

 

[Charlaquin]

EDIT: Sorry, didn’t see that you had already answered my question. Carry on.

 

[Charlaquin]

I still can't see why that is abuse. That's just people not portraying their characters in a way you prefer. Worthy of a conversation perhaps to get on the same page with regard to the expectations of how the table plays, but hardly abuse in my view.

In D&D 5e, personal characteristics and Inspiration are the way to incentivize portraying the character in a consistent, established manner. Not that any of the people who seem the most concerned about how other people portray their characters ever seem to use it...

But… but… something, something, Pavlov!